• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Omnipresence

@TLT1

Once again, if you literally are one with all of space, being all-pervading and having ubiquity over it, then you do have equally godly reactions, and in fact the very distinctions of movement speed and reactions become obsolete as you are actually in a metaphysical state of being. You have no need to move or to attack, nor do you have anything to react.

You keep talking about very limited, nerfed notions of Omnipresence, which is what we call Pseudo-Omnipresence, and label it as full Omnipresence.

It's not. You cannot be Omnipresence without having complete ubiquity. Ubiquity is the literal synonym of Omnipresence.
 
Look. We can keep spouting technicalities all day but that won't get us anywere. "Omnipresence is a state of existence" is a ridiculous argument that ignores that omnipresence = ubiquity.

Being 6-dimensional is a state of existence, yet we automatically treat it as attack potency. No one makes threads saying "technically nothing suggests a 6-dimensional being can destroy infinite 5-dimensional structures" and back it up by saying "a 3-dimensional human isn't capable of destroying infinite 2-D structures."

So why backtread and use this debate for another state of existence?
 
Essentially we are having different definitions of omnipresence.

What you suggest is beyond what the wikis definition is, which is just "Omnipresence is the property of being present everywhere, whenever and nowhere at the same time, referring to an unbounded presence. The ability lets you to be everywhere at once that is, at every point in space during a given instant."

I could do further debating based on your definitions in regards of active and passive control and different definitions of ubiquity, but I think I would rather not. For one thing because it is unnecessary conflict over something irrelevant as long as the wikis definition stays what is on the current omnipresence page and for the other because I have the impression that some of you guys connect the debate with religious believes or principles borrowed from such in which case I am in principle reluctant to discuss those. (not to mention that it is essentially fighting over semantics here. A discussion like this would at most lead to a refinement of your proposed definitions until it finally does unmistakably cover all properties which in your opinion an omnipresent should have, to which instant reaction time would belong. More or less the same problem as debating with people whether or not free will exists.)
 
I don't think it really matters whatever if it's speed or not.

I already said LONG AGO, while Omnipresence is not speed, it's more like a point of existence than speed; Certainly beyond the concept of "speed".

You exist anywhere, everywhere and nowhere all of them at the same time <-----At this point, "speed" is way beyond irrelevant.
 
@DontTalk

Omnipresence is a concept that comes directly from religion and theology. There's no point in discussing it without bringing up those things to the table. Omnipresence is completely metaphysical and theological, rather than scientific. To debate it we have to debate it from those lenses.
 
@Kami

That's exactly what I said. Which is why it's absurd to say that you can be Omnipresent and still have Human Movement Speed or something. Speed in general is rather irrelevant to you.
 
Not in the slightest. I personally argue from experience with several series I know with varying levels of depth in their potrayal of certain powers. If that's the wikis definition...the definition is wrong. In fact we already pointed out our pages for omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience are flawed. But whatever.
 
They all are. The Omnipotence page is essentially just an edgy teenage atheist poking fun at the concept and saying it's dumb, without delving into any of the myriad philosophical and theological interpretations one can have of Omnipotence.
 
Sera Loveheart said:
Look. We can keep spouting technicalities all day but that won't get us anywere. "Omnipresence is a state of existence" is a ridiculous argument that ignores that omnipresence = ubiquity.
Being 6-dimensional is a state of existence, yet we automatically treat it as attack potency. No one makes threads saying "technically nothing suggests a 6-dimensional being can destroy infinite 5-dimensional structures" and back it up by saying "a 3-dimensional human isn't capable of destroying infinite 2-D structures."

So why backtread and use this debate for another state of existence?
Click to expand...
The reason we use the dimensional thing is because it is convenient and it would be too much work to change all tier 1 and 2 profiles. Though, technically there are more rigourously methods/systems like cantor's greater multiverses, but, we just go with this particular intuitive one because it is simple to understand.

Also, technicalities are the very basis of definitions, so avoiding them means avoiding proper logic in the definitions.
 
Kevyn Souza is someone who really understands these concepts in a deep philosophical way, far more than anyone would through pseudo-intellectualism or complicated technicalities.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
Kevyn Souza is someone who really understands these concepts in a deep philosophical way, far more than anyone would through pseudo-intellectualism or complicated technicalities.
Click to expand...
That's literally Ven.
 
I love how treating omnipresence as its own literal definition is over-complicating things, but fusing and loading it with other distinct abilities is somehow a simple way to go -_-
 
People really make stuff like this more complicated than it needs to be.

As an example, many fictional universes contain characters or ships that move at FTL speeds through sheer, well...speed. It doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense for something the mass of say, an adult man to move at speeds greatly exceeding that of light without his length reaching zero, achieving production of infinite energy, etc. It just happens, because this fictional world does not need to follow the exact rules of ours, even if that is where it has its roots.

We can treat omnipresence as it is established in a verse and be on our merry way without all the hassle.
 
Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot said:
People really make stuff like this more complicated than it needs to be.

As an example, many fictional universes contain characters or ships that move at FTL speeds through sheer, well...speed. It doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense for something the mass of say, an adult man to move at speeds greatly exceeding that of light without his length reaching zero, achieving production of infinite energy, etc. It just happens, because this fictional world does not need to follow the exact rules of ours, even if that is where it has its roots.

We can treat omnipresence as it is established in a verse and be on our merry way without all the hassle.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I agree 100%
 
Okay this thread appears to be heading towards a very unstable direction. With the argument of omnipotence being turned into just Science vs "Philosophy".

So I advice you all to not let your emotions run wild and be on your best behavior.

Also it's appreciated if people don't comment unnecessary statements like "help us" or boasting ones or another's credibility as it shows off the wrong impression. Please stick to argument at hand and everyone be on their best behavior.
 
The point I was trying to make is that omnipresence simply means being present in a certain region entirely. Any other aspects/powers are separate abilities that many omnipresent entities poss, but these abilities are not attached to omnipresence itself.


Like lets say a character has x, y and z powers, here omnipresence is x, meanwhile y and z are other powers. What I am saying is that omnipresence is simply its own definition and powers y and z are not inherently fused with omnipresence, they are their own separate abilities that an omnipresent or a non omnipresent being can have. Thats all.
 
We had this same argument about Regenerationn. Type 4 includes other powers so it can't be legit. Enough of this insanity....

Powers can simply have other powers applied to it.
 
Omnipresence isn't really a state of speed, yes.

I've seen people bring this up on some threads, so that the OP could equalize speed.
 
LordXcano said:
"While Omnipresence is, strictly speaking, not speed, it is listed as a speed statistic due to behaving in combat similarly to how normal speed would. For example, a being that is omnipresent within 3-D space would win every race against an opponent with normal speed, due to already being at the goal by the time the race starts. In addition, an attack from an omnipresent being is unavoidable with normal speed due to the attack being in every location in the universe at once.

A being that is not only omnipresent throughout space, but also time, would also be able to react to every attack from a being with normal speed before the opponent would even begin to throw the attack. This is the case because such a being would exist throughout all of time, experiencing past, presence and future at once while not being bound to the normal flow of time."
Click to expand...
So, to start with, I personally like LordXcano's rewrite of DontTalk's text, so I would suggest that we insert it somewhere into the Omnipresence page.

Or would it be better to insert it as a footnote in the Speed page?
 
DontTalk said:
Essentially we are having different definitions of omnipresence.

What you suggest is beyond what the wikis definition is, which is just "Omnipresence is the property of being present everywhere, whenever and nowhere at the same time, referring to an unbounded presence. The ability lets you to be everywhere at once that is, at every point in space during a given instant."

I could do further debating based on your definitions in regards of active and passive control and different definitions of ubiquity, but I think I would rather not. For one thing because it is unnecessary conflict over something irrelevant as long as the wikis definition stays what is on the current omnipresence page and for the other because I have the impression that some of you guys connect the debate with religious believes or principles borrowed from such in which case I am in principle reluctant to discuss those. (not to mention that it is essentially fighting over semantics here. A discussion like this would at most lead to a refinement of your proposed definitions until it finally does unmistakably cover all properties which in your opinion an omnipresent should have, to which instant reaction time would belong. More or less the same problem as debating with people whether or not free will exists.)
Click to expand...
Azathoth the Abyssal Idiot said:
People really make stuff like this more complicated than it needs to be.

As an example, many fictional universes contain characters or ships that move at FTL speeds through sheer, well...speed. It doesn't matter if it doesn't make sense for something the mass of say, an adult man to move at speeds greatly exceeding that of light without his length reaching zero, achieving production of infinite energy, etc. It just happens, because this fictional world does not need to follow the exact rules of ours, even if that is where it has its roots.

We can treat omnipresence as it is established in a verse and be on our merry way without all the hassle.
Click to expand...
For the second, I agree with DontTalk's and Azathoth's assessments that we should keep things simple and straightforward for practical, rather than theological, purposes, as plenty of our profiles list the ability in the sense of strictly being present everywhere to the scale of stature that the character is defined. If not, we would have to remove it from almost all of them.
 
Matthew Schroeder said:
They all are. The Omnipotence page is essentially just an edgy teenage atheist poking fun at the concept and saying it's dumb, without delving into any of the myriad philosophical and theological interpretations one can have of Omnipotence.
Click to expand...
And third, I do not appreciate these types of recurrent snide comments, trying to build dissent against our regulations, and in this case insulting the past work that I did with the help of DarkLK.

The page in question attempts to explain why we do not treat the concept of omnipotence as provable or mere claims as absolute within this wiki. This is one of the basic foundations for our tiering system, and should not be undermined.

I am always open for structural improvements however, but this wiki is not supposed to strictly follow the most absolute theological interpretations, as a large part of fiction does not.
 
One does not need to have infinite reaction to be omnipresent. An omnipresent character might not be necessarily aware of everything going in the universe. It's a state of existence, not speed.
 
The Omnipotence page is bad. You can bring up all these reasons why it is how it is, but it's bad. We should be able to criticize anything on this wiki, as well, regardless of who made it. Just because you and DarkLK worked on it together doesn't mean it's perfect, and doesn't mean it cannot be improved.

Of course we won't just accept any claim of omnipotence or treat it as absolutely provable, but it needs to be explained so that people can actually understand what it is, because, as it is, the page explains nothing and is just going to leave a new user more confused than anything. Therefore, it's a bad page. It should explain omnipotence as opposed to just mocking the idea. Omnipotence is a theological concept and is thus something that has to be explained in those terms here.

I'm on Matt and Sera and Ven's side here, regarding the omnipresence debate.

Some concepts are theological, and a lot of verses throw out science in the same many throw out theology. So we can't treat either as absolute. We need to acknowledge both of them in our system and in abilities, because both appear in fiction.
 
Well, as I mentioned, I am fine with improving the page, but it should still explain why we do not use the concept of omnipotence within this wiki.

In addition, I do not appreciate Matthew's recurrent roundabout insults about our different policies, such as "just an edgy teenage atheist poking fun at the concept and saying it's dumb".
 
Not what most fiction plays. The problem is that this majority interprets omnipotence in a way... let's say... stupid. Any character who has a certain level of reality warping in fiction is called omnipotent. For this reason we see abundant quotes about characters such as Eternity or Enerjak who classify these chars as omnipotent, whereas we ourselves don't classify them as.

In fact, regardless of saying that we don't have to follow a theological interpretation, we have to follow, and we already follow. So much so that the characteristics that identify a Tier 0 are the same unconquerable attributes of a monotheistic God as independence, unconditionality, transcendence, being the greatest conceivable being (which somewhat resembles Anselm's ontological argument and his famous "aliquid quo nihil maius cogitari possit"), not to be limited to nothing at all (denoting jewish mysticism and kabbalistic theology, and ÎÉÎÖ΃ ÎíÎòÎú), and the violation of logic itself (known "universal possibilism", which says that even logical and mathematical principles are contingent and violable. René Descartes was one of the advocates of this position. There is also the trivialism, dialetheism and paraconsistence that say that contradictions can happen in reality, Nicolau de Cusa was an example of a dialetheist)

If we say anything about Omnipotence, we are talking about the opinion of some philosopher or theologian of the past. In fact, if we speak of Omnipotence, it is impossible to escape from theology and philosophy. Long before the fiction approach to omnipotence, philosophy and theology have already addressed, and above all omnipotence is a 100% theological and philosophical concept.

Well, anyway, would not it be better for someone to open a discussion about it ...? Does not that change the focus of this discussion?
 
Well, in this wiki we follow the directives of the structure created by DarkLK regarding that omnipotence is impossible to prove, due to its inherent paradoxes, even for boundless beings in tier 0. This is not something that we are going to change.

Improving the omnipotence page is fine, keeping the tier 0 characters as having questionable omnipotence is fine. Adjusting them to 100% certain absolute omnipotence beyond all logical restrictions, is not.
 
What Matt meant is that it is not enough to say that it is contradictory and therefore will not be used, it does not explain what Omnipotence should be the main page objective. There is no point in using paradoxes to ridicularize the concept, this will only leave the reader most confusing (sorry for my terrible english).
 
Well, as I mentioned, it is fine if you wish to improve the page with better information about the subject, as long as it still informs people about why we do not use the concept as an absolute certainty.
 
Anyway, I have asked DarkLK to give input here.
 
Eh, I could discuss this topic for a few hours in Skype (in Russian, of course), but I hate doing big posts in English, guys.

I have always tried to build my system in such a way that it is maximally unified in the context of various fictional verses. This is more practice-oriented than theory.

And when we talk about practice, we meet pretty different interpretations in various fictional verses. Often, abstract beings are omnipresent because of their nature. But no less often this directly concerns only their abstract nature, reality functions that they fulfill.

For example, there may be a character who embodies the universal time. But the direct influence of this character on creatures within the universe can be limited by the influence of time on them. And it is not necessary that the process itself was conscious by this being. For more delicate purposes, such a character may need to create a manifestation body. And this body will no longer possess omnipresense, but simply have some speed.

Or we can have a living universe. The "omnipresence" of this character within this universe can not differ from our "omnipresence" within our own bodies.

There can be many other options. But all this will be far from the philosophical and theological definition, although initially I repelled from them.

The authors of fictional verses try to condone philosophical and theological concepts (at least partially) within the framework of their stories. It does not always look good. This may be due to the incompetence of the authors or the impossibility to justify the plot without adjusting the concepts. But the reasons are not important, the results are important.

Theological and philosophical approach and our approach differ very much. Theologians and philosophers view concepts in their pure form, while we consider characters and feats. Theologians and philosophers do not need proof, but we need them. We can not just believe the author who is scattered by philosophical and theological terms. There are fictions where the allegedly monotheistic God is a shit level, and there are fictions where the shit level cosmic beings is called omnipotent and omniscient. There are many people who believe that the monotheistic God is an old man on a cloud who is limited by the paradoxes of banal logic. Etc. We can not prove the philosophical and theological concept of omnipotence with feats and we can not be sure that some author has in mind exactly this when he/she uses philosophical and theological terms. This is the main problem, this is why an "omni" things are unprovable.

I probably will not say anything new, but we must consider each case individually. Of course, articles need to be edited. Always something needs to be edited, this is natural progress.
 
I agree with DarkLK. Thank you very much for taking the time to help us out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Yan Sen Speed Revision? (NEED STAFF)
Replies
18
Views
2K
SqubiNavrdx
RigelBR7
Black Hat Abstract Existence and Omnipresence
Replies
13
Views
1K
RigelBR7
RigelBR7
InfNoyan
8.season Cw flash 2-A + Omnipresence I want it to be added to vsbw
Replies
2
Views
1K
Excellence616
Excellence616
CallMeWiertz
Immortality type 9 for Raiden Ei/Raiden Shogun
Replies
31
Views
2K
CallMeWiertz
CallMeWiertz
Sir_Ovens
Small Speed Change for Anniversary Kamen Riders
Replies
18
Views
2K
Sepe_ferdinan
Sepe_ferdinan
Back
Top