The Ethics of Omniscience-(closed)

MargueriteMing · Jun 12, 2009

There have been a number of stories about a typical sort of person rising to some sort of goodhood, and they are often quite interesting. However, at a certain point, it's like the author runs out of ideas.

So, your character has become a god, with power over the universe, life, and death. What are his/her moral obligations to us lesser folks?

Shurikane · Jun 12, 2009

Everything and nothing.

I'll reference to Us the Gods by Bernard Werber, in which several gods in training learn the ropes of their new job by being given a civilization to guide along. Some of the gods take a very active and aggressive role, while others lean back and find themselves content with simply watching what happens. Funnily enough, far from running out of interesting stuff to write, the author went on to make two more of those Gods books.

Ultimately, obligations go only as far as the god's moral attachments. If that character has a past history among humans, he might feel more obligated to deal with the race as he couldn't bear to really let go of them. On the other hand, an outsider god might have no problem with reshaping reality as he sees fit without any regard for its inhabitants.

MargueriteMing · Jun 12, 2009

I think it is much more complicated than that. For example, consider death:

There are a bunch of different cases, depending on what happens/what people believe, and what people think is right and wrong may vary for each case.

1. When you die, you're gone.
2. When you die, you're gone, but all the information about you and your life is saved somewhere, although inanimate.
3. When you die, you still exist, but in stasis somewhere.
4. When you die, you undergo some form of judgement/reconciliation/enlightenment, then spend the rest of your life in the spiritual realm, being punished/rewarded/whatever
5. When you die, you undergo judgement/reconciliation, then are reincarnated immediately/when you want to live another life.
6. When you die, you get elevated and can build your own world(s).

So, does an elevated god have moral obligations to the rest of us? If case 1 is true, then death is permanent, would a god have a moral obligation to prevent the permanent passing of other sentient lives?

Death Wizard · Jun 12, 2009

I think that any moral obligations would come from within the god, not from without.

Cyia · Jun 12, 2009

MargueriteMing said:
So, your character has become a god, with power over the universe, life, and death. What are his/her moral obligations to us lesser folks?

Was there a restriction placed on the means by which this character ascended to godhood? Was it conditional? Must they fulfill certain tasks to keep their deified status?

If not, I see no reason for there to be any moral "obligation" whatsoever.

It might sound great for a greater being to choose to use his/her power to the benefit of the lessers, but shouldn't there be an element of free will involved? At what point does this deified man/woman get to say "enough" when confronted by the problems of the lesser folks? Because there will always be the next guy in line wanting special consideration. Once an ascended being starts down that path, it's very difficult to stop - especially when it's based on morality.

Not only is morality subjective, but it implies guilt should the character fail.

MargueriteMing · Jun 13, 2009

So, might makes right? If you're a god, you can stomp on anyone? There is no absolutes when it comes to right and wrong? Does everybody agree with that?

Honestly, I was expecting a serious debate on this.

Let's start with case 1 from above: when a person dies, they're gone, lost forever.

Does a divine being have any obligation (ie, is it a good thing) to prevent that from happening?

Looked at another way, would YOU feel an obligation to do something to fix case 1, if you gained godlike power? If you would feel obligated, and if most (or at least a large portion) would also, does that mean such an obligation exists?

BigWords · Jun 13, 2009

In books, especially ones which are written seriously, the idea is solid. Hard to pull off, but a solid idea nevertheless.
In other media it can come across as a joke-mine which is mined for unendingly bad results.
*cough* Bruce Almighty is utter crap. *cough*

Izunya · Jun 13, 2009

Define "omniscience."

It seems to me that there are different levels of "knowing everything." A being could, hypothetically, know the structure and inner workings of absolutely everything, from quark level on up, but not be able to anticipate future events (they're not part of "everything," they don't exist yet). If I were a being like that, I think I would spend the first few centuries—or perhaps millennia—terrified of screwing up. "Knowing everything" in the sense of being able to anticipate the future, perfectly—that's a level I have a harder time imagining. I suspect my initial impulse would be to try and uplift other beings to my level so I'd have someone to talk with—ordinary humans would have no way to get my concerns or my joys, at this point—but I don't really know.

To answer the most recent question: yeah, I think I'd try to make an afterlife. I'm really bummed out by the fact that my grandfather is dead and I hope some God or godlike being is letting him explore the universe. (Grandpa was a physicist.) Thing is, I'm not sure I'd make it an eternal afterlife. It's entirely possible—in fact, I think it's likely—that humans, as limited beings, eventually think all the interesting, cool, or fun things we can think. In which case, a god who's into making afterlives and maintaining heaven should give them some sort of better option. Merging with others to form a higher consciousness, becoming a godlike being all by oneself, migrating to a different universe where all the rules are different, or just oblivion—I don't know what would work. Might be different for everyone. In fact, a suggestion box would be an absolute must.

As for moral obligation, though . . . I think I'd start by looking at what a god is morally obligated not to do. Creating a hell, that's one of mine; as time-bound beings, humans really can't do anything that deserves eternal punishment. (Not to Godwin the thread, here, but the usual rebuttal to this is, "But what about monsters like Hitler?" And my answer—just for me—is that if the divine equivalent of psychological help doesn't and never will work on such people, I'd just make them gone. No punishment. Nothing left to punish.) Smiting cities, or other big displays of wrath that are heavy on collateral damage. Smiting people for not believing in me or other trivial crimes. (I'd like to reserve the option of smiting mass murderers and criminals on the same level; I suspect I'd be rather more interventionist than the god of our universe, assuming we have one.)

In other words, I think that zapping off to another galaxy and leaving Earth to its own devices might not be particularly praiseworthy, but I can think of much, much worse things or a god to do. Morality generally starts with a list of Thou Shalt Nots, not Thou Shalts.

Izunya

MargueriteMing · Jun 13, 2009

Sorry, I was imprecise. Actually, omniscience is impossible, as is omnipotence. Let's say, extraordinarily powerful, such that the being in question has extraordinary powers over life and death, and is for all intents and purposes immortal.

To prove omniscience is impossible, consider it means that the being can know everything. In which case, the being can know a question to which it can't know the answer. A similar proof can be constructed to prove nothing is omnipotent--the being can create a boulder too big for it to lift.

If you spent a few centuries afraid you'd screw up, lots of people would die who were unrecoverable. If you would consider that a loss (or even if you think it MIGHT be a loss, until you are sure it is not) then shouldn't you immediately do something about it? Assuming case 1 is in effect, of course. The other cases warrant different actions.

As to Hitler, what if you punished him until he reformed, and everyone he injured forgave him?

Ruv Draba · Jun 13, 2009

Many characters are extraordinarily powerful, but that doesn't make them gods. What makes them gods is their moral authority over other characters. This moral authority is a social status that makes a character godlike even if its physical or mental powers are limited. (Consider the Pharoahs, Caesars, a guru in an ashram, or a drill sergeant in boot-camp).

There is no direct connection between physical or mental powers and moral authority. Both fiction and history are full of figures with extraordinary abilities but no moral authority at all, and vice-versa.

I'd also suggest that moral authority can't be commanded -- it can only be given. The Pharoahs were gods not because they ruled the Egyptian empire, but because the Egyptian people decided to sanctify them.

The sanctity of moral authority is created by taboo. Once we decide that a figure must be treated differently and that neglecting such treatment is an offense to society then an aura of sanctity begins to grow around the figure. Then give the figure the ability to pronounce on behaviours, customs, values, to decide who has social power and you have the beginnings of godhood.

Whether you consider the use of such sanctity and moral authority as benign, malign, or merely opportunistic depends on the relationships, the context and the perspective. For instance, I have a deity (a powerful spirit) who is the patron of street-children and also their sanctified moral authority -- so he's not just a talisman, he's their god. He's neither omniscient nor omnipotent -- he's actually an old forest spirit that found a new job and new worshippers.

He protects them, but he also uses them for his own ends. Viewed by the children, he's entirely benign because their taboos forbid them from questioning his motives or the wisdom of his pronouncements. From an anthropological perspective he's opportunistic because while he looks after the children, he also uses them for his own ends. From a mainstream perspective he's a threat to society since he lures children away -- so to the parents of the street-kids, or the police etc.. he's malign, almost demonic since he asserts quite different values to those in mainstream society.

Which perspective is true? The matter is arguable. In fact it is argued in my story. The deity wins that particular debate, but only because of the characters he's arguing with. I'm not sure that the reader will be as persuaded as the characters are.

Cyia · Jun 13, 2009

There's a huge difference between having a compassionate nature that makes you WANT to do good things and help out the lesser beings, and having an actual obligation that says you HAVE to do it.

Doing things because one chooses is usually a better deal than having to do them by compulsion. Compulsion leads to resentment, whereas choice leads to care.

An ascended being (still going on the assumption of a human --> greater being conversion here) who only gets to keep his ascension IF he does X amount of good things may come to find the lessers a burden. One who takes stock of his new position and chooses to help those for which there is no other help comes at it from a caretaker's role.

Omniscience nor omnipotence is impossible, it's just exists as a concept difficult for a finite being to grasp. Your proof of logic is similar to mathematical proofs that "prove" things that can't possibly be:

(from another post)

Given a = b

multiply both sides by a
a^2 = ab
subtract b^2 from both sides
a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
factor each side
(a + b)(a - b) = b(a - b)
divide both sides by (a - b)
a + b = b
since we know that a = b
b + b = b
sum left side
2b = 1b
divide both sides by b
2 = 1

MargueriteMing · Jun 13, 2009

Given a = b

multiply both sides by a
a^2 = ab
subtract b^2 from both sides
a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
factor each side
(a + b)(a - b) = b(a - b)
divide both sides by (a - b)
a + b = b
since we know that a = b
b + b = b
sum left side
2b = 1b
divide both sides by b
2 = 1

The above "proof" is flawed. Dividing by (a - b) is not allowed when a = b, because you will be dividing by 0, which is undefined.

Cyia · Jun 13, 2009

MargueriteMing said:
The above "proof" is flawed. Dividing by (a - b) is not allowed when a = b, because you will be dividing by 0, which is undefined.

Exactly. Just because you can "prove" something by an accepted method, doesn't mean your answer isn't flawed. Therefore you cannot prove omniscience/omnipotence is impossible. You can believe it, but you can't prove it.

Ruv Draba · Jun 13, 2009

Cyia said:
Exactly. Just because you can "prove" something by an accepted method, doesn't mean your answer isn't flawed. Therefore you cannot prove omniscience/omnipotence is impossible. You can believe it, but you can't prove it.

Actually, I think that the whole argument is silly.

Omnipotence and omniscience can exist as a story premise. All it takes is for an author to decide 'this character can do whatever it likes' or 'this character knows whatever it needs to know', and that's that. The premise might be logical or illogical, sensible or silly but stories can be illogical or silly -- nobody minds. The author is the ultimate authority of what applies in the story.

When we're talking about our shared world though, we need to define our terms before we can discuss them. But how can we define omnipotence when we can't even list the verbs in our universe? How can we define omniscience when we can't even list all the nouns and adjectives? We simply can't have logical, meaningful conversations about omnipotence and omniscience in our shared world because it's too big for those terms to make sense in. We can only have such conversations about the worlds of fiction.

When people try to talk about stuff they don't understand they often reduce it to fiction -- analogies and metaphors, speculations and myths. Except in little corners, our universe is too big to understand, and so we have to tell stories about it. We can happily talk about omniscience or omnipotence in those stories, but in the end they'll still just be stories -- and we'd have to accept the stories in the first place to even have the discussion. And as we know, everyone doesn't accept our stories, no matter who endorses them.

I reckon that omnipotence and omniscience are worse than impossible in our shared world -- they're so ill-defined as to be meaningless to talk about outside of fiction. So my suggestion is: if you want to argue about it, first agree on the story in which it's supposed to occur.

MargueriteMing · Jun 13, 2009

Cyia said:
Exactly. Just because you can "prove" something by an accepted method, doesn't mean your answer isn't flawed. Therefore you cannot prove omniscience/omnipotence is impossible. You can believe it, but you can't prove it.

If you can find a logical flaw in either of my examples, I'd be very interested in hearing it. Until you do, I'll go with my "proofs", since you didn't provide any yourself.

Even if the big omnis are really impossible, it doesn't rule out a being who is very, very knowledgeable and powerful. But that is just an aside to the main topic. So is the argument that we can't even talk about omniscience/omnipotence, because they are so far beyond us. If you presuppose that we can show them in fiction, why can't we talk about them?

BTW, omniscience and omnipotence are human concepts, and their meaning is fairly well understood, being all-knowing and all-powerful. While we may not be able to encompass the full realization of either one of those, since there is obviously much we don't know about the universe yet, I think we understand what the words mean.

I don't know, maybe this topic of discussion makes people uncomfortable, or feel inadequate.

Izunya · Jun 13, 2009

MargueriteMing said:
If you spent a few centuries afraid you'd screw up, lots of people would die who were unrecoverable. If you would consider that a loss (or even if you think it MIGHT be a loss, until you are sure it is not) then shouldn't you immediately do something about it? Assuming case 1 is in effect, of course. The other cases warrant different actions.

Sorry, I wasn't all that clear. Being terrified of screwing up doesn't mean not acting. I think I would act to save all those people, but I don't think I'd change the world of the living all that much, even if I thought I might have terrific ideas, for fear that I'd mess up all civilization. Small moves, incremental changes. And a suggestion box. The suggestion box is important.

As to Hitler, what if you punished him until he reformed, and everyone he injured forgave him?

About Hitler: what I said was, "If the divine equivalent of psychological help doesn't work." I like the idea of reform. I like the idea of reform even for really, really bad people.

But, y'know, here's the thing. Say I grab Hitler's soul, isolate him from all of the other people I've saved, and go to work on him. Exactly how long should I keep this guy imprisoned, trying out new ways to alter his mind? I don't have his consent. He's proud of all the people he killed. Is it okay if all we do is talk about how much he hated his father and try out Primal Scream therapy? How about if I make him live the last hours of a selected few of his victims? How about if I make him live through all of them? How long before it becomes pointless torture?

Compared with the issues inherent in holding someone for centuries while trying to brainwash them, getting the human race to forgive Hitler should be easy peasy. I think I'd try to help him, but I'm not sure where I'd draw the line—what sort of therapy or punishment I would refuse to use—and I'm not sure I could know until the decision was staring me in the face.

Izunya

Ruv Draba · Jun 14, 2009

MargueriteMing said:
BTW, omniscience and omnipotence are human concepts, and their meaning is fairly well understood, being all-knowing and all-powerful.

That's a synonym MM, not a meaning. To ground the terms in meaning you have to explore them against your understanding of the world. And when you explore these terms outside a fictional world you get into trouble -- as millennia of philosophy have shown.

Example: presumably an omnipotent being can create anything and presumably it can destroy anything. But can it create something that it couldn't destroy? Could it divide itself into two distinct, omnipotent creatures? And how could two creatures with different wills simultaneously be omnipotent?

Example: presumably an omniscient being knows the future as well as the past. Which means that no other beings have any choice at all -- the world is entirely predestined -- at least in the mind of the omniscient being. That means that we non-omniscients are all amoral creatures, since morality requires better and worse choices. But can the omniscient being see its own future? If it can then how can it be a moral creature? If you believe in absolute omniscience then whole universe must be machinery. And if all that were true, why speculate or have moral arguments at all? Why make such a creature a moral authority since it's just a robot like us? Why reward one robot for pleasing another? Why punish another robot for displeasing another? And why ask why and what if in the first place?

When one tries to resolve such questions all one does is create fictions in which one gets the answers one wants -- but those fictions diverge from other folks' fictions. There are some famous logical results which tell us that if we try to create sentences that talk about all possible sentences we can quickly run into paradoxes. The above sorts of questions are special cases of this result.

Conclusion: just because you have a term with a string of synonyms doesn't mean that it's meaningful or well-defined outside some fictional realm.

MargueriteMing · Jun 14, 2009

Ruv Draba said:
That's a synonym MM, not a meaning. To ground the terms in meaning you have to explore them against your understanding of the world. And when you explore these terms outside a fictional world you get into trouble -- as millennia of philosophy have shown.

Example: presumably an omnipotent being can create anything and presumably it can destroy anything. But can it create something that it couldn't destroy? Could it divide itself into two distinct, omnipotent creatures? And how could two creatures with different wills simultaneously be omnipotent?

That is my point, made by a much neater example, thanks! True omnipotence is impossible. So is true omniscience. Of course, a being could be so powerful and knowing that for most all purposes it is all-powerful and all-knowing. Just, not quite.

Example: presumably an omniscient being knows the future as well as the past. Which means that no other beings have any choice at all -- the world is entirely predestined -- at least in the mind of the omniscient being. That means that we non-omniscients are all amoral creatures, since morality requires better and worse choices. But can the omniscient being see its own future? If it can then how can it be a moral creature? If you believe in absolute omniscience then whole universe must be machinery. And if all that were true, why speculate or have moral arguments at all? Why make such a creature a moral authority since it's just a robot like us? Why reward one robot for pleasing another? Why punish another robot for displeasing another? And why ask why and what if in the first place?

Exactly why prophecy doesn't exist, it violates free will. Omniscience doesn't exist, either, and the future is an unknown, and unknowable, because it isn't fixed. You can predict it, but there is error involved in that, it's a guess. It may be a very good guess, but it isn't certain, because of free will.

When one tries to resolve such questions all one does is create fictions in which one gets the answers one wants -- but those fictions diverge from other folks' fictions. There are some famous logical results which tell us that if we try to create sentences that talk about all possible sentences we can quickly run into paradoxes. The above sorts of questions are special cases of this result.

Conclusion: just because you have a term with a string of synonyms doesn't mean that it's meaningful or well-defined outside some fictional realm.

It's not just a string of synonyms. The concepts are clearly defined. The ideas, however, are flawed, and unrealizable.

Which brings us back to the original question--the ethical obligations of a newly-ascended godlike being.

MargueriteMing · Jun 14, 2009

Izunya said:
Sorry, I wasn't all that clear. Being terrified of screwing up doesn't mean not acting. I think I would act to save all those people, but I don't think I'd change the world of the living all that much, even if I thought I might have terrific ideas, for fear that I'd mess up all civilization. Small moves, incremental changes. And a suggestion box. The suggestion box is important.

The problem with a suggestion box is you need to make yourself known to get suggestions. Once people know for sure there is a "divine" being, it effectively puts a gun to their heads to be good people, their choices become less free.

About Hitler: what I said was, "If the divine equivalent of psychological help doesn't work." I like the idea of reform. I like the idea of reform even for really, really bad people.

But, y'know, here's the thing. Say I grab Hitler's soul, isolate him from all of the other people I've saved, and go to work on him. Exactly how long should I keep this guy imprisoned, trying out new ways to alter his mind? I don't have his consent. He's proud of all the people he killed. Is it okay if all we do is talk about how much he hated his father and try out Primal Scream therapy? How about if I make him live the last hours of a selected few of his victims? How about if I make him live through all of them? How long before it becomes pointless torture?

What about a system that informs him of the full costs of everything he did, and compels him to understand his guilt? Of course, he can still choose to be unrepentant.

Compared with the issues inherent in holding someone for centuries while trying to brainwash them, getting the human race to forgive Hitler should be easy peasy. I think I'd try to help him, but I'm not sure where I'd draw the line—what sort of therapy or punishment I would refuse to use—and I'm not sure I could know until the decision was staring me in the face.

Izunya

So, okay, you'd stop people from dying. The earth will get pretty crowded. Or did you mean something different?

Zachariah · Jun 14, 2009

All I see is a bunch of humans talking about human things. Why would ethics or morals be of the slightest concern to a god?

Mr Flibble · Jun 14, 2009

Zachariah said:
All I see is a bunch of humans talking about human things. Why would ethics or morals be of the slightest concern to a god?

Because he used to be a man? ( at least that was the example in the OP)

Suddenly being promoted to godhood probably wouldn't change your personality. You'd still feel human ( at least to start)

Of course you might go on an ego-trip....

I have one of these in one of my books. But he stays the same in essence. He became a god because he was a very moral individual. In his mind, it's his responsibility to stay that way.

But that's just him. If a different person had the same happen to them...Sheesh, if Ilfayne became a god, people would start spontaneously combusting a lot. He's not got much in the way of morals or responsibility. Or not that he likes to admit to anyway

So I'd say that any responsibility / morals would, as life everywhere, rest with the individual. I mean myth is littered with gods who have neither.

Ruv Draba · Jun 14, 2009

MargueriteMing said:
That is my point, made by a much neater example, thanks! True omnipotence is impossible.

What existence do we live in, MM? Is it logical and consistent and sensible, or illogical and silly? And how do you know it's that? Is it possible that it's only seemed logical and consistent and sensible across the brief interval of human history, but that it's been illogical and silly for a much greater period? Is the sense and consistency we presently enjoy real and eternal or is it feigned or transient?

Answer: we can't possibly know.

If we don't know, how can we know what's possible?

a being could be so powerful and knowing that for most all purposes it is all-powerful and all-knowing. Just, not quite.

Authors are all-powerful in their stories and all-knowing -- in the sense that any knowledge or curiosity that the characters ever express, is answerable authoritatively by the author (even if the answer is: nobody is permitted to know that). If we were the fiction of another author (or perhaps programs on a cosmic computer), could we possibly know that we were?

My answer: Only if the author allowed us to.

Exactly why prophecy doesn't exist, it violates free will.

Free will is an axiom. We can't prove that we have it, or that we don't. But it's a very convenient axiom socially, because it lets us hold each other to account for our choices. It's also convenient psychologically because it gives us reason to try harder. So we like to believe that we can make choices, even though there's strong statistical evidence that we're actually very constrained by our education, our social circumstances, our genetic heritage, our mental states and the chemical balances in our bodies.

(Prophecies by the way, have clever means of skirting contention with free will. If you don't specify exact details or exact time-frame then you can make predictions without saying exactly how or when or why they'll come to pass. Many prophecies are of this sort. Indeed, some economic forecasts are of this sort.)

It's not just a string of synonyms. The concepts are clearly defined.

Actually, they're not. Even after 5,000 years of philosophy, we're still working at what 'truth' and 'knowledge' mean (links available if you're interested). If we can't confidently say what they mean, it's nigh impossible to talk about what omniscience means.

In physics, we're still exploring what 'cause' and 'effect' mean. If we don't fully get that then how can we talk intelligently about omnipotence?

My answer is this: if you're convinced that you know what those things mean, then you've defined them in a fiction that you believe in. That's absolutely fine -- but to make sense to others I think that you need to explain what your fiction is, and see if others agree to work within that frame.

So what's your personal fiction?

I suspect that among your fictive beliefs is that the world is consistent, sensible and logical, that all sensible questions have sensible answers, that answers can be worked out over time, and that all effects have causes. And that somehow, despite an orderly, predictable universe, people can still make choices independent of their histories and circumstance. That's an attractive fiction for free-minded people who enjoy logic and analysis (I do, and I agree with most but not all of those things), but not everyone does. And if they don't agree on those assumptions, can they possibly agree on what omnipotence and omniscience mean?

I'd suggest not.

Cyia · Jun 14, 2009

MargueriteMing said:
If you can find a logical flaw in either of my examples, I'd be very interested in hearing it. Until you do, I'll go with my "proofs", since you didn't provide any yourself.

Even if the big omnis are really impossible, it doesn't rule out a being who is very, very knowledgeable and powerful. But that is just an aside to the main topic. So is the argument that we can't even talk about omniscience/omnipotence, because they are so far beyond us. If you presuppose that we can show them in fiction, why can't we talk about them?

BTW, omniscience and omnipotence are human concepts, and their meaning is fairly well understood, being all-knowing and all-powerful. While we may not be able to encompass the full realization of either one of those, since there is obviously much we don't know about the universe yet, I think we understand what the words mean.

I don't know, maybe this topic of discussion makes people uncomfortable, or feel inadequate.

They're unprovable for the same reason that "proof" I showed you. They're unquantifiable. You can't quantify an infinite number, structure, or being, therefore you can neither prove nor disprove its existence.

MargueriteMing · Jun 14, 2009

Cyia said:
They're unprovable for the same reason that "proof" I showed you. They're unquantifiable. You can't quantify an infinite number, structure, or being, therefore you can neither prove nor disprove its existence.

Prove your assertion, because I reject it. You don't need to quantify infinity to be able to say definitive things about it. For example, I can say that positive infinity is greater than 1, that it is non-zero, etc. I can demonstrate its mathematical existence.

I disproved your "proof", and very easily. You have yet to construct any sort of proof to disprove my own trivial examples. Ruv provided even better examples, you haven't disproved them, either.

Now, please, either say something constructive in this thread, or just leave. Coming in here and insisting that the topic can't be talked about with any validity doesn't contribute anything of worth, it is just trolling.

BigWords · Jun 14, 2009

Nobody seems to have considered an alternate theory - The universe, and everything in it, is 'shards' of a single mind. If you can accept for a moment that everything which exists forms part of a greater entity, then the universe itself is omnipotent. This could combine the disparate theologies, scientific knowledge and other ideas as the universe questioning itself.

The universe could be omnipotent according to the above theory and quantum theory. Just a rumination on the possibilities...

The Ethics of Omniscience-(closed)

MargueriteMing

Shurikane

Mobius Lasagna

MargueriteMing

Death Wizard

Tumhe na koci puujetha

Cyia

Rewriting My Destiny

MargueriteMing

BigWords

Geekzilla

Izunya

MargueriteMing

Ruv Draba

Cyia

Rewriting My Destiny

MargueriteMing

Cyia

Rewriting My Destiny

Ruv Draba

MargueriteMing

Izunya

Ruv Draba

MargueriteMing

MargueriteMing

Zachariah

Still assailable

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

Ruv Draba

Cyia

Rewriting My Destiny

MargueriteMing

BigWords

Geekzilla