Join the new world

Q: Can admin create a rule that admin can not break?

A: The power of Admin transcends all rules, so the question is meaningless.

Haha I expected someone would refer to the admin.

The question still stands though. If their power is able to break all rules, can he still create a rule he can't break or is he not omnipotent?

Unique article.

If one has endless power, then do they have the ability to end said power? No, because it is endless, or no, because then it wouldn't be endless. Paradoxes shouldn't be used to describe actions, thoughts, emotions, or rationalize anything. I think this article serves as a basis to do a mixture of those things, but I could be wrong.

If they were to "create a rule [they] can't break", then what's the matter with that? President Barack Obama cannot kill a man, yet he enforces this rule. The admins are in a similar position, they must enforce and lead by example.

You're forgetting the arrow of time. An omnipotent being can limit its power, and after that will no longer be omnipotent.
I don't see a paradox here.

@ Benn: first of all I should clarify that the use of the word admin was just a joke. I do not consider an admin as an omnipotent being, I just gave the omnipotent being the name A/Admin to make it easier to talk about (instead of having to call it 'the omnipotent being' 🙂 ).
I do not understand what you mean with "Paradoxes shouldn't be used to describe actions, thoughts, emotions, or rationalize anything. I think this article serves as a basis to do a mixture of those things, but I could be wrong." though, a paradox imho is just a statement with a puzzling contradiction (ok it's a bit more complicated but in short).

The question whether an omnipotent being, with endless power, can make it's power endless and therefore no be an omnipotent being seems like a contradiction. How can an omnipotent being not be omnipotent, or how can an omnipotent being not be able to perform a certain action (as the being is supposed to be omnipotent).

The rule he can't break supposes he isn't able to break it. Barack Obama can kill a man, just grab a gun and shoot someone. The question is whether something without limits can limit itself (in an absolute way) and therefore not be unlimited anymore while the name (omnipotent) refers to it as being unlimited.


@ Danmar Zonder: once the omnipotent being limits it's power, it's not omnipotent anymore. If A limits his power to not being able to lift rocks, it can not be omnipotent. How can you call A omnipotent if it can not lift rocks? Omnipotent implies that A can do everything, every moment, everywhere.

I guess omnipotence is one of those things people will never grasp using a limited mind? I think the only way to understand the nature of being omnipotent is to become omnipotent oneself. Without using our subjective minds.

Ah, maybe this is an easier way to say what I mean. This is the philosophical definition of subjective (the one I mean). It is quoted from dictionary:

"relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself."

the thing most frequently referred to as being omnipotent is god.
Why do we say god is omnipotent? Because he is something we cannot sense with our senses (some say they did have direct contact with him, spiritually). Maybe it is wrong to look at a human being and try to imagine it is omnipotent.

I do not know if this also what Claude Williams tried to say?

For eRepublik i think the admins can act as the god some believe exists in the real world. The admins can adjust anything, (though they sometimes do not know how! 😛), and are in that way omnipotent. A rule they can't break; does that actually exist in eRepublik?

in the paradox then, what is no one? A person, a living creature, or anything? Usually, we would define this as a human being, because this is the highest form of being, we really understand. So a rock that no one can lift, may be lifted by a being that we do not know of, or understand.
This means that the paradox is only applicable for human beings, and i do not think anyone of us can be omnipotent in the real world.

In my opinion the point is there has to be a limit. Either he can create a rock he can't lift, or he can't create that rock. In a sense, there has to be an ability, but the ability creates a weakness.

I havent read all comments, so maybe it has been said before...


* If A can limit his power, it will be limited and thefore not be omnipotent.

That statement is incorrect in my opinion. Being able to limit your power doesnt mean that you actually do it. He will no longer be omnipotent when he uses his ability to limit his own power, but remains omnipotent as long as he doesnt use this ability (even though he could if he wanted).
Being omnipotent he could limit his powers, but also give himself the ability to undo the limitation or place a timer on it or something like that (temporary in-omnipotency... is that even a word 😛)

(damn bug lost my comment)

If you are capable of limiting your omnipotent power then your omnipotence can be limited thus not be omnipotent.

Besides, it doesn't matter how long he limits his power. The possibiity or temperoray non-omnipotence means he's not omnipotent.

@Jazar: Depends... if you are omnipotent, does that mean forever or at that exact moment? I am writing this message is true at the moment, but when you are reading it it isnt true anymore... But that doesnt make it untrue when i am writing it.

However, there has been a moment of non omnipotence and therefore no omnitpotence. You can't be omnipotent at one time and not omnipotent and the other moment. That's part of it's definition imho, the ability to perform all actions and any moment
It just shows tehre logically seems to be the need of limits.

Guess thats a difference in definition then 😉

Another response is that by definition an omnipotent being is set free from the grip of what is logically possible. An omnipotent being therefore would not be subject to what is logically possible. In this sense, an omnipotent being could create a rock that even itself could not lift, then lift it. An omnipotent being could also not exist and exist at the same time at any time. A being with knowledge of the concept of omnipotence could then see that omnipotence is by no way limited by logic.

I think you're right Jazar; there can be no true omnipotence. However, of the scenarios, I imagine that a near imnipotent being would not be able to limit it's powers, as this would be only one, albeit fundamental, limitation. Otherwise, this being would decrease it's near infinite power in a finite way everytime it creates a rock it cannot move. In other words, a near-omnipotent being that cannot limit its own power is nearer to true omnipotence than one that can (especially if it has), although true omnipotence, as you are defining it, is unobtainable.