Omni

[TillICollapse]

If an Omni being existed, is it possible for there to be more than 1?

Somewhat as another poster pointed out, I don't see why there couldn't be more than one "omni" being, depending on the omni-attribute we are talking about.

If you have two beings who are omniscient, they may not handle their knowledge the same for example. Knowing and actions are two separate things.

The one property I could see that may be limited to only one "omni being" would be omnipresence. If a being is everywhere at once, then what is to distinguish such a being from another being who is also everywhere at once ? If you are able to distinguish them, then arguably there would be a moment where one being is not in the same place as another. However ... this may only apply from a classical perspective, and may depend on a variety of factors which are further limited by our own ability to measure things in space and time.. It depends on what "everywhere" means, IOW. Consider quantum superposition, the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, etc. From what I remember armchair physics wise, an unmeasured photon is essentially "everywhere" at once along with other unmeasured elementary particles, or any object in a quantum state of superposition for that matter. Thus you have things in "omni" states, in a manner of speaking, which are not one and the same thing. So would an omni being have to experience wave function collapse and decoherence in order to manifest lol ? Would it still be considered an omni being if it could do such a thing ?

I could also see how you could have two beings that were "all powerful". Having that power, and acting on it are two different things. It would be similar to apex predators, or apex or alpha beings I suppose.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I wasn't thinking of Q. I despised that character. I always thought him too powerful, and thereby the episodes he haunted were quite boring.

My son made some interesting observations about the way Peter Jackson portrays Legolas in LOTR (and the improperly named Hobbit movies). He likes Orlando Bloom as an actor, and loves Tolkien's stories, but hates the way Legolas is portrayed in the movies because he comes across as perfect. I had attributed my distaste to Bloom's poor acting, but I'll admit I think he did well in Pirates of the Caribbean, so I think my son may be on to something.

LOL - Yes, I found Q to be a bit annoying as well at times, although occasionally interesting (like the episode in which Q has his powers limited and essentially becomes 'human' for a short time.)

And yes, I agree with your son that Legolas seems to be portrayed by Jackson as the epitome of 'elf-hood.' But, it was still enjoyable for me to see Bloom fill the part.

As far as your OP...the human idea of 'Omni' may not really 'dig' at the reality--or hidden nuances--of such a level of power. Trying to understand this kind of concept is not only ethereal, but probably more akin to 'handling' something like radiation. We're not really sure what it's going to do for us or to us.

Peace

 

[Resha Caner]

Why do you have a problem with them looking differently? What you know has nothing to do with how you look.

I have no problem with them looking different. I'm just saying that is not a basis for calling them separate beings.

Why? Why would having unlimited power require (using your example) they both like chocolate and dislike vanilla?

I suppose it depends on how one defines omnipotence.

One can taste vanilla, and thereby acquire the knowledge of how vanilla tastes, and yet still dislike it. So, one can be omniscient and dislike vanilla.

Yet to dislike something is, at a minimum, to lack the ability to appreciate it. It is a weakness of sorts. An omnipotent being can't have weaknesses.

 

[Resha Caner]

IMO omnipresence forces the conclusion that only one being exists. No other being, Omni or not, could exist. So, I would agree with you there.

I could also see how you could have two beings that were "all powerful". Having that power, and acting on it are two different things. It would be similar to apex predators, or apex or alpha beings I suppose.

I would disagree about omnipotence, though. If a being fails to use its power when it needs to, or uses it when it shouldn't, that implies a weakness that an all powerful being shouldn't have. IOW, omnipotence seems to encompass all the other (logical) Omni properties.

But as I said to Ken, I suppose it depends on how you define omnipotence.

 

[Resha Caner]

As far as your OP...the human idea of 'Omni' may not really 'dig' at the reality--or hidden nuances--of such a level of power. Trying to understand this kind of concept is not only ethereal, but probably more akin to 'handling' something like radiation. We're not really sure what it's going to do for us or to us.

My reason for the thread was not to teach others about Omni properties, or to learn about them ... though invariably I do learn a few things here and there. My purpose was to see how people try to process the idea of a being with Omni properties.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

My reason for the thread was not to teach others about Omni properties, or to learn about them ... though invariably I do learn a few things here and there. My purpose was to see how people try to process the idea of a being with Omni properties.

Resha,

I understand your intent for the thread, and I think it's a good one. But my point, from an analytic standpoint, is that Omni ideas and their potential characteristics, if they exist, might be beyond what people are actually able to process. We might 'think' we can process these ideas, but when we attempt to do so, we may not really be 'digging' into the reality of the concepts. In other words, we may just be playing with words. We may be in a Captain Picard situation, bantering with Q.

Edit: [You may want to 'Frame' the above statement I made as one form of 'processing' the Omni. Just a thought...]

 

[TillICollapse]

IMO omnipresence forces the conclusion that only one being exists. No other being, Omni or not, could exist. So, I would agree with you there.

Personally I said omnipresence may be only an attribute that one being could have. I didn't take the side that it needed to be a mutually exclusive attribute just yet. Again, we can already demonstrate that an object can occupy different locations and states simultaneously (which is contradictory to classical physics) along with other distinct and separate "things" which can do the same thing. Thus we already have things that borderline on demonstrating this behavior and are still separate from each other in what they are.

I would disagree about omnipotence, though. If a being fails to use its power when it needs to, or uses it when it shouldn't, that implies a weakness that an all powerful being shouldn't have. IOW, omnipotence seems to encompass all the other (logical) Omni properties.

But as I said to Ken, I suppose it depends on how you define omnipotence.

Yes it would depend on how you define omnipotence in that case. Unlimited power wouldn't be mutually exclusive to having a weakness. For example, a being could die, but resurrect. Such a being could experience pain, death, etc ... while still overcoming death eventually. If one believes that Jesus was one and the same as an omnipotent God, then right there is an example.

 

[Ken-1122]

I have no problem with them looking different. I'm just saying that is not a basis for calling them separate beings.

If separate bodies and different looks are not a basis for you calling them separate beings; what IS your basis for calling them separate beings?

I suppose it depends on how one defines omnipotence.

I define omnipotence as having unlimited power. How are YOU defining it?

One can taste vanilla, and thereby acquire the knowledge of how vanilla tastes, and yet still dislike it. So, one can be omniscient and dislike vanilla.

Yet to dislike something is, at a minimum, to lack the ability to appreciate it. It is a weakness of sorts. An omnipotent being can't have weaknesses.

Not that I agree with your statement; but if we assume it is true, suppose they preferred chocolate over vanilla? Would you classify that as a weakness too? If not; why would unlimited power require both subjects to prefer chocolate over vanilla?

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

I would disagree about omnipotence, though. If a being fails to use its power when it needs to, or uses it when it shouldn't, that implies a weakness that an all powerful being shouldn't have.

I disagree! Unlimited power does not mean you have an unlimited powerful mind. When people speak of a powerful mind; they aren't talking about actual power, they are talking about an ability to think well. in theory, a foolish man can have unlimited power and make poor decisions.

Ken

 

[KCfromNC]

Actually, the question was whether they could have only 1 Omni property, not whether they could have more than one.

Sure. One could have all-encompassing 5'11"-ness without having any other omni feature, for example.

How? How would you distinguish them? If they are both all-knowing, then they both know exactly what the other will do. If one knows exactly what another will do in all times and places, how is that different from a single being?

One has red hair, the other brown. Easy to tell them apart.

 

[Resha Caner]

I understand your intent for the thread, and I think it's a good one. But my point, from an analytic standpoint, is that Omni ideas and their potential characteristics, if they exist, might be beyond what people are actually able to process. We might 'think' we can process these ideas, but when we attempt to do so, we may not really be 'digging' into the reality of the concepts. In other words, we may just be playing with words. We may be in a Captain Picard situation, bantering with Q.

You're right. That is one possibility.

Edit: [You may want to 'Frame' the above statement I made as one form of 'processing' the Omni. Just a thought...]

I'll put it on the list.

 

[Resha Caner]

Personally I said omnipresence may be only an attribute that one being could have. I didn't take the side that it needed to be a mutually exclusive attribute just yet. Again, we can already demonstrate that an object can occupy different locations and states simultaneously (which is contradictory to classical physics) along with other distinct and separate "things" which can do the same thing. Thus we already have things that borderline on demonstrating this behavior and are still separate from each other in what they are.

Actually, the "one electron" hypothesis is currently out of favor. So, while physics may posit that an electron can be in multiple places, it actually rejects the idea that it is in all places.

Even then, the Copenhagen Interpretation is just a conjecture.

 

[Resha Caner]

If separate bodies and different looks are not a basis for you calling them separate beings; what IS your basis for calling them separate beings?

My left hand looks different than my right hand, but they are part of one being.

Identical twins look the same, but they are separate beings.

For me, being centers in the spirit ... which is not something you'll be able to relate to. So, let me connect the dots. I would say the human spirit is expressed through the soul ... which roughly equates to your Greek idea of mind. So, I can roughly translate for you that to me a single being is a single mind.

I define omnipotence as having unlimited power. How are YOU defining it?

I would define it as maximal power - a subtle yet important distinction. Further, we need to understand the usage of "power". Within the Omni context I use it roughly as a synonym of "ability". Since acquiring and retaining knowledge is an ability, I include it in omnipotence.

From what you've said, I suspect you are using it differently, in a more restricted sense as an ability to act - to interact with external material things.

Just as a note, I suppose there is yet a 3rd and even more restrictive use, where "power" would equate to the physics definition. That restricted sense would allow for even more weakness. An omnipotent being could have adequate power to hit a home run, and yet strike out every time he comes to bat because he lacks the ability to accurately swing the bat.

I disagree! Unlimited power does not mean you have an unlimited powerful mind. When people speak of a powerful mind; they aren't talking about actual power, they are talking about an ability to think well. in theory, a foolish man can have unlimited power and make poor decisions.

I think the above would explain why we respond differently here. But, as long as we understand how each other uses the term, I can agree your logic follows from your definition. Hopefully you see how my logic follows from my definition.

Not that I agree with your statement; but if we assume it is true, suppose they preferred chocolate over vanilla? Would you classify that as a weakness too? If not; why would unlimited power require both subjects to prefer chocolate over vanilla?

Maybe you can see this better now. To always prefer chocolate means chocolate is always the proper choice for achieving the perfect result. But I don't think that would be true. The Omni being would be able to appreciate both, and so would "prefer" whichever suits the conditions of the situation at hand.

 

[TillICollapse]

Actually, the "one electron" hypothesis is currently out of favor. So, while physics may posit that an electron can be in multiple places, it actually rejects the idea that it is in all places.

Even then, the Copenhagen Interpretation is just a conjecture.

Oh I actually wasn't speaking to any concept of there being only one electron or a single particle that existed as an explanation for all the other ones like it, rather I was speaking to quantum superposition of two separate particles (for example) as well as objects that travel at the speed of light (or perhaps the theoretical superluminal as well). That's why I qualified my statement with "borderline" lol.

 

[Ken-1122]

For me, being centers in the spirit ... which is not something you'll be able to relate to. So, let me connect the dots. I would say the human spirit is expressed through the soul ... which roughly equates to your Greek idea of mind. So, I can roughly translate for you that to me a single being is a single mind.

We are not talking about a single mind; we’re talking about two separate minds with equal capabilities.

I would define it as maximal power - a subtle yet important distinction. Further, we need to understand the usage of "power". Within the Omni context I use it roughly as a synonym of "ability". Since acquiring and retaining knowledge is an ability, I include it in omnipotence

If Omnipotent equals unlimited ability, then to say God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresence is redundant because omnipotent (unlimited ability) will cover all of these.

Maybe you can see this better now. To always prefer chocolate means chocolate is always the proper choice for achieving the perfect result. But I don't think that would be true. The Omni being would be able to appreciate both, and so would "prefer" whichever suits the conditions of the situation at hand.

I didn’t say that. I said to always prefer chocolate when compared to vanilla! What is preferred when compared to strawberry, mint, or any other flavor is not addressed. And the only “perfect result” is their subjective preference of taste. In theory it is possible for a omniscient person to still prefer taste of one flavor over another. Do you agree?

Ken

 

[Resha Caner]

We are not talking about a single mind; we’re talking about two separate minds with equal capabilities.

Well, actually, you were asking how I would differentiate two beings, and I think the answer follows from what I said. One mind = one being; two minds = two beings. Therefore, if there exists two bodies that look different, but are controlled by a single mind, they are one being.

If Omnipotent equals unlimited ability, then to say God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omnipresence is redundant because omnipotent (unlimited ability) will cover all of these.

It could if one considered all those things to be logically possible abilities.

There is a reason I ended up thinking of omnipotence that way, but it's not a common definition. As such, I usually bow to the more common definitions ... or to whatever definition someone wants to use ... with the stipulation that such definitions do not bind me to agreeing they describe God.

I didn’t say that. I said to always prefer chocolate when compared to vanilla! What is preferred when compared to strawberry, mint, or any other flavor is not addressed. And the only “perfect result” is their subjective preference of taste. In theory it is possible for a omniscient person to still prefer taste of one flavor over another. Do you agree?

I already agreed this is possible WRT omniscience. As noted at the top of this post, I think of a being as identified by their mind. I can see how omniscience alone could allow for weakness, so a single mind could have conflicting thoughts or dominating preferences that are not always perfect for the situation.

I saw omnipotence differently. But, I can see how this would follow from your definition, which is probably the more common one.

 

[elopez]

Hi, it's been awhile.

Yeah how have you been? Decided to take a break, just kinda creepin around for now hah.

I suppose he wouldn't, and that would have interesting implications. But it might become a bit of a semantic game. If an Omni being chooses not to use his full power, it would be because his full knowledge tells him that is what he should do, and so he uses the full power appropriate for the situation, which could be considered omnipotence.

On the other hand, if he didn't use his full power because he didn't know any better, then he is lacking in the "power" of knowledge, and therefore may not be omnipotent.

What implications do you think those are? If both beings are defined as omnipotent though, how could it be about semantics? I'm not sure of the intentions of an omnipotent being buy I'd think if He were able to use any amount of power He desires, He could do so for a many of reasons. Do you suppose? I'm not sure myself I've only seen this idea seriously presented once, so I'm sort of running with it.

Yes, I think trying to posit more than 1 Omni being leads to absurdity.

Perhaps a being with all 3 omni attributes. What if there were two omniscient beings, who only encompassed that sole attribute of the three? Or two omnipresent beings? Are those possible?

 

[Ken-1122]

Well, actually, you were asking how I would differentiate two beings, and I think the answer follows from what I said. One mind = one being; two minds = two beings. Therefore, if there exists two bodies that look different, but are controlled by a single mind, they are one being

What are you talking about? I said two bodies controlled by two separate minds! I don’t understand why aren’t you getting this.

My point is, in theory you can have multiple people with their own separate minds and bodies and still be equally capable.

Ken

 

[Dave Ellis]

Hi Resha, even if such a being could exist, the Bible makes it clear that it does not and never will.

Where does it make that clear?

 

[Resha Caner]

Perhaps a being with all 3 omni attributes. What if there were two omniscient beings, who only encompassed that sole attribute of the three? Or two omnipresent beings? Are those possible?

Based on the discussions here I can see, depending on how one defines the terms, that there are several possibilities.