Omnipotence

Yeah this article will look at different interpretations for omnipotence and then figure out how well the definitions work. They will be sorted from most to least powerful.

Okay guys I don't even know where to start. As AntiCitizenX already realises, there are no such things as "correct" definitions. There are only good definitions (e.g. clear, consistent, concise, intuitive) and bad definitions (e.g. unclear, unverifiable, convoluted, illogical). But as you can see, some interpretations are necessarily illogical because they were defined that way. On this basis, they would be bad definitions as a result, and therefore be empirically impractical and useless, but that doesn't preclude them from being meaningfully discussed. So honestly, it's really hard to just take an interpretation and throw any counterarguments at it. They're just definitions with different properties.

I suppose we could, like, create arguments and counterarguments for adopting certain interpretations when we try and talk about these things in particular contexts, but you could still just refer to them by their variations anyway, like absolutist omnipotence or naturalist omnipotence. It also kinda reveals what a giant red herring it is to try and figure out what the "correct" interpretation of morality is. Are there correct criteria? Great, you're inserting an arbitrary ought into the discussion before we've even started. It's a no-win scenario \(-\_-)/

## Absolutism/voluntarism/universal possibilism

Absolutism, also known as voluntarism which only seems like a conversational focal distinction, as well as universal possibilism apparently, is the ability to do anything, regardless of whether something conforms to logic or not.

Honestly I don't really see anything wrong with this interpretation. They keep mentioning omnipotence paradoces, but when it comes to illogical circumstances, this definition denies any logical evaluation. Trying to use logic to prove it wrong completely misses the point. Of course it's logically wrong - that's at least some of the point of doing it. Yeah, I know, AntiCitizenX, that makes the interpretation completely useless and impractical and we should just move on all the time, and metaphysics suck as you explained in your blog essay, but still, hypercosmology's a fun thing to talk about and it's interesting to explore the increasingly esoteric transcendent phenomena it addresses.

Obviously a fundamental property of absolutism is that it's empirically unverifiable because by definition it transcends the scope of logical analysis, so it's only useful for hypercosmological discussion. I dunno if I'm repeating myself but I wanted to say it all this way :P

### Counterarguments

* **An omnipotent absolutist would not be able to do things that are illogical or undefined.**
	+ **Counter-rebuttal: Evaluations cannot be accurate due to the restrictions of logic.** Logic cannot be applied to create an accurate representation or analysis of illogical phenomena, such as illogically omnipotent actions.

### Hypercosmological hierarchy

Hypercosmological models enable entities to be "omnipotent" with a maximum of two limitations:

1. The omnipotent being can't leave the Box.
2. A being with omnipotencen has an influence restricted to phenomena of the cosmological level ω+n and are inferior to beings with omnipotencen+m where m>0. At least, that's according to the guys at the Verse & Dimensions Wiki. They're still figuring a bunch of stuff out, like some of their stuff is alright but a bit of it seems kinda far-fetched. I mean I know anything is possible in the Box but still, the stuff about things like Kotoblade, godverses, Hyperman, Transcendentem, the Supergod Council and the Guardian of the Fifth Wall just seem like schizo rants :P

The thing about the Box is that for everything anyone can say exists, it is inside the Box. Outside of that is Absolute Nothing where whatever hypercosmologically impossible phenomena people [are unable to] refer to when they talk about Metaboxial phenomena reside. That's where they say the True God is. Personally, I think such animism is unnecessary for even the Box to exist. If there was *anything* that I can say with absolute certainty didn't need a god, it was the Box. If the True God exists, essentially an animistic variation of the Box, why not a car variation of the Box? Why not a game variation of the Box? Why not a non-existent variation of the Box? Like the Box already has all potential properties, making it all-encompassing and symmetrical in every way

## Logical possibilism

It's the ability to do anything logically possible. Unfortunately, there are logically conflicting ideas that are reasonably logical by themselves, so the definition kind of defeats itself if it's not able to do anything illogical. (Fortunately, this isn't explicitly stated.) All of you probably know the stone paradox by now:

* **Premise 1.** Lifting any finite rock is logically possible.
* **Premise 2.** Creating a finite rock that can't be lifted by it's own maker is logically possible.
* **Premise 3.** All logically possible things can be done by an omnipotent logical possibilist.
* **Conclusion A:** An omnipotent logical possibilist must be able to do illogical things, because by 3, they would be able to do the things in 1 and 2, which are contradictory because 1 entails an ability to lift any finite rock while 2 entails an inability to lift certain finite rocks. Therefore, an omnipotent logical possibilist must be able to do illogical things.
* **Premise 4.** Illogical phenomena (e.g. entities, actions) don't exist.
* **Conclusion B:** By A and 4, an omnipotent logical possibilist must be nonexistent or beyond existence.

## Consistent logical maximalism

Look we need a name for this

It's the ability to perform any action from the set of logically possible and intercompatible actions that allows for the most capability. It's kind of a way to solve the omnipotence paradox as I mentioned here. Liberative actions are more capable than restrictive actions, so one of the main things such an omnipotent being can't do is anything that would restrict or counteract theirself.

This is the highest form of omnipotence we can perceive and logically admit, since other ones would invoke paradoces that would be logically undermining. We all know how you can't make a rock too heavy for you to lift if you can lift any rock, or how you can't draw a square circle (in Euclidean space at least), or how you can't perform the action: 9;;582;96,0u;69|96f96:58;o6:it/\*#:8. (Man, keysmashing looks weird on mobile.) In essence, you can't create contradictions because a fundamental property of empirical existence seems to be that it's necessarily not paraconsistent, and it's binary, being part of a binaryfield. A being with stronger forms of omnipotence would be able to do these things, but they would probably transcend [the usual idea of] existence anyway, and we can only scientifically assess things that exist - everything else is speculative hypercosmology. Any part of such a being that we know exists would necessarily have to have this level of omnipotence or less, otherwise we would be dragged into some form of nonexistence with them.

Also the way this is categorically a "bad" definition, and how it would only apply to beings that don't exist or transcend existence, is a funny reflection of how we consider existence to be better than nonexistence :P

## Naturalism

Naturalism is the ability to do anything consistent with one's own nature. Because nobody has the ability to do anything inconsistent with their own nature, everything in existence is naturalistically omnipotent. It shouldn't be surprising, really, given that any set must contain everything it contains, by definition and the principle of reflexivity. Selfpotence or autopotence are better terms for naturalistic omnipotence