Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26484417-20180225092054/@comment-26484417-20180226110329

Hegao wrote:... It's alright; if I weren't ready for reactions like this, I would not have bothered to post my thoughts on the matter here.

In any case, to date, I have read many discussions about omnipotence (be it on the omnipotence page, or on one of its interpretations), and there is a common pattern: Whether the original query is silly or thought-provoking, the side that defends the standing definition oftentimes ultimately resorts to a variety of logical fallacies. This, among other things, merely leads me to believe that the problem lies with the current definition and / or the misalignment between the use of the power's name and its local definition (one might call it "misuse"), not really in the fact that more and more people wonder about the same or similar thing(s).

... Well, if I didn't misunderstand, your paragraphs all wonder about a single concern, so I will try to address it here.

The answer is, in my opinion, surprisingly simple: The 4th Wall powers and other powers like Fictional Transcendence are described to have far greater reach than what you seem to imply. One might argue that this is because your "grasp on reality" is interfering with your ability to immerse into reasoning about superpowers--which is somewhat ironic given the topic of our exchange, but certainly not a bad thing.

Let's put it another way, if a power says that a character with said power can breach into the real world, then it doesn't matter that the real world doesn't have powers and the like; i.e., the description of the power says it, therefore we have to account for it in our reasoning about said power. None of these powers are real, we all realise it (I assume), but that doesn't mean we cannot take what we know about them and / or their standing definition and work from there. And this means that if a power says the holder of the power can reach the real world, they can then reach all fictional verses from there, because the real world is where all these fictions are created.

And as for why some people wonder about this and others don't, that simply boils down to "we're different". My approach focuses on what is "possible" under the standing definition, and then using that potential to stress-test its attribution--as well as the definition itself. Naturally, I may fail to consider certain things, but I may equally consider things others have failed to consider in the past; that's how it works, and why combined effort is likely to yield a more apt analysis.