PlaidX comments on Hollow Adjectives

[PlaidX]

the fact that God cannot do something that cannot be done does not limit His omnipotence.

The point is that “omnipotent” is itself a “hollow adjective”, as you put it. Omnipotent doesn’t mean “you can do anything that can be done”, it means you can do anything, full stop.

[wilkox]

This bothered me too. If ‘omnipotent’ is defined as ‘able to do things which can be done’, we’re all gods.

[NancyLebovitz]

Defining ‘omnipotent’ as ‘able to do things which can be done’ is an interesting move—it makes me realize that my ideas about what can be done (especially by hypothetical extremely powerful beings) are very foggy.

Religious people bump up against that when they try to see why some prayers apparently get answered and others don’t.

[jwhendy]

I think it’s more aptly described as “able to do that which is logically possible.” Thus, the square circle paradox is generally deemed to be ruled out since it really is nonsense. I agree that the stone question is actually different.

HERE’s some discussion about that very thing...

[Gray]

Not really. Something “can be done” if some possible being, which may not be actual, can perform it. If there’s a 500 pound barbell in front of me, and I can’t lift it, this doesn’t mean that the barbell can’t be lifted, only that I can’t lift it. If you’re omnipotent, then you can lift it.

I guess I’ve always understood omnipotence as being so powerful that no possible being can be more powerful than you are.

[DaveX]

With a lever, and a place to stand, you can lift the barbell.

Defining omnipotence in respect to all possible beings seems more like “suprapotent” or “ultrapotent”.

How is this the actual meaning of “omnipotence” and how does it relate to “a descriptor who’s actual meaning makes an argument self-evidently bad, but which is sound if you do really think about it”

I’d taboo “actual” and “really”.

[Clippy]

Yes, it seems these critiques are more about the validity of the concept of literal omnipotence than about beings that purport to meet that standard. The problem is that literal omnipotence is impossible, and so humans that care about related problems should probably delineate what specific powers a being labeled as “omnipotent” has, rather than remain stuck on the definitional debate.

[wilkox]

Agreed, with the addendum that in this context there seems as much disagreement over the definition of “possible” as the definition of “omnipotent”.

[prase]

Partly because “can” is a hollow verb.

[gjm]

Coincidentally, a can is a hollow object.

[byrnema]

Would have been funnier if you had said,

Coincidentally, a can is a hollow noun.

Voted up anyway. I like that sort of humor.

[gjm]

I considered both that and ‘”can” is a hollow noun’, both of which sound better, but since at least half the point of the joke is deliberate literal-mindedness I felt that what I said should be literally correct. (A can is not a noun, though “can” is; “can” is not hollow, though a can is.) Others’ mileage may of course vary.

[byrnema]

Ah. I agree. I hadn’t noticed the difference between ‘a can’ and can.

[Sniffnoy]

I always understood “omnipotent” as “can set the state of the universe to anything” (like someone pausing a simulation to make some changes).

[Vladimir_Nesov]

I always understood “omnipotent” as “can set the state of the universe to anything” (like someone pausing a simulation to make some changes).

This might be insufficient, if inhabitants of the universe care about the facts following from the original definition of the universe (which facts normally can’t be controlled by changing the state of a simulation), and not about the state of any particular simulation (which they won’t even be able to perceive without special equipment that responds to facts about the simulation).

[Sniffnoy]

True. Which I think mostly just further goes to show the incoherence of the idea in the first place.