Talk:Absolute Destruction/@comment-32056628-20180514091512/@comment-29564364-20180612144206

@Nekron1 «Reader Embodiment is itself a specialized variation of omnipotence and is by all means a fully blown omnipotent power.» First, Absolute/Meta/Omni- powers are all highly specialized variations of Omnipotence. And second, no, Reader Embodiment is in no way an omnipotent power. An omnipotent power is a power that is omnipotent or has the potential to achieve Omnipotence while Reader Embodiment is nowhere close to it. If anything, it's the complete opposite of Omnipotence—if Omnipotence is being all-powerful, it's opposite is being powerless—as the reader fundamentally cannot interact with or has extremely limited influence on the story they're reading.

«[And] only omnipotence cannot have limitations its forms/expressions/variations do have limitations.» Because the contributors who added those limitations don't understand what variations are. A variation entails difference, not necessarily lesser power, and this is especially true in regards to Omnipotence's variations.

«So, a specialized variation of omnipotence can be a potential limitation to other omnipotent powers.» "Potential" is the keyword here. That's why all limitations should use "may" since it's up to the writer to decide whether they apply or not in their work and to which character(s)/power(s).

«Reader embodiment is [the] polar opposite of author authority. If author authority grants you the godly powers of the author, reader embodiment grants you the immunity of reader to the story as if you are reading a story all power/abilities are the part of the story which the reader is reading.» Yes, you're right that Reader Embodiment is opposite to Author Authority, but you don't seem to grasp that their immunity to everything in the story comes from their inability to interact with it, and since interactions—or lack thereof—are mutual, that means the reader is equally unable to affect anything in the story.

«So, affecting a reader embodiment is equal to defeating the author. Both are impossible.» No, affecting a reader avatar is definitely not the same as defeating the writer. For one, the reader's avatar is a fictional character while the writer is a real person. But defeating an author avatar is the same as defeating a reader avatar because both are fictional characters within a fictional setting depicted in a work of fiction written by a real person, so it's perfectly possible for both to be affected/defeated by another character if the writer writes it so which, in-story, translates to "if the writer avatar (a.k.a. Author Authority user) wills it so".

«Remember our argument about omnilock vs author authority? Once you gave an example that if you are writing a story no one couid be immune to you as even an omnilock is a part of the story.» Yes, that is correct.

«Thus, reader embodiment was created to counter this statement. If you are writing a story I am immune to it as like you even I am a real life entity and I am not a part of your story.» Except that Reader Embodiment doesn't counter that statement either as the user is still a fictional character inside a story written by the writer, and thus under Author Authority's jurisdiction. It's still the writer who chooses whether or not they put a representation of the reader in their story and it's still the writer who decides what they do with it, just as is the case with every element of every story ever.

«Well you can say that the reader embodiment was put in place by the author but this power is basically a real life entity lending their immunity to a charecter.» No, because that real life entity doesn't have the power nor the authority necessary to grant any immunity to any character whatsoever. Only the writer does because they are the one writing, not the reader.

«Now, if you say that a real life author can retcon a reader embodiment he can do the same with an author avatar too. But he cannot retcond a real life reader.» Stop confusing reality and fiction. The user of Reader Embodiment is the fictional character that represents the real reader, not the real reader themselves. Superpowers are for fictional characters to wield, not real people, so the real reader is just a normal person reading a book and the real writer is just a normal person writing it, while the users of Reader Embodiment and Author Authority are both fictional characters inside said book whom represent those real people. You said it yourself: "a real life author can retcon a reader embodiment he can do the same with an author avatar too" and it's all that counts because Superpower wiki is about fictional powers wielded by fictional characters and the fact that a real writer has no power over a real reader is completely irrelevant. What matters is which has power over fiction because that's what this wiki is about.

«So, when you compare you have to compare reality with reality and fictio with fiction. You cannot compare an actual author with a fictional one.» Actually, it is possible to compare reality and fiction depending on what you mean by "compare", the objects of the comparison and the method of comparison.

«You cannot compare an actual author with a fictional one. So, a reader avatar is by all means immune to an author avatar if you look into it in an in-verse perspective.» There is gaping hole in your logic that needs to be bridged. Care to explain how exactly did you get from "a writer and a user of Author Authority cannot be compared" to "therefore users of Reader Embodiment are immune to Author Authority"? Author Authority simply looks at a writer's power over their work from an out-of-story perspective and translates that into fiction from an in-story perspective. Basically, it's the writer saying "From my characters' perspective, all the writing, erasing and rewriting I'm doing is that omnipotent character's doing." so, anything the writer controls in their work, "that omnipotent character" can affect it. That includes all the characters, even the writer's and the reader's avatars.

«reader embodiment is immune to this and I am adding this a limitation as It makes you the reader and so you are immune to everything.» No, no, no, no and no! You still haven't made a convincing case for your position.

«[...] and besides overpowered powers like this absolute destruction needs limitations.» Why do they need limitations exactly?

«Nonexistance has been proved to be useless against reader embodiment [...]» When? Where? How? And by whom?

«[...] and if you damn care to read the comments on reader embodiment, Koipfi personally said that immunity to everything will be the result of having this power.» Then Kuo's reasoning is just as fallacious as yours. And talking about logical fallacies, this is a blatant appeal to non-authority fallacy.