Omnipotence is logically impossible!

Originally posted by JS357
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ist

Added to words to form nouns denoting:

a person with a particular creative or academic role;

Person
A human being regarded as an individual.

So can I not use -ist with regards to God? Can God not be a pianist?

And did this headline writer get it wrong:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/robotic-pianist-teotronica-plays-faster-than-a-human/#!bmVPca

Can I not say that my cat is a sadist?
Or can my cat be a person?

Originally posted by JS357
Calvinist, Baptist,

Works for organizations too: The Calvinist Church

capitalist; industrialist
Works for nations: The US is capitalist.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Person
A human being regarded as an individual.

So can I not use -ist with regards to God? Can God not be a pianist?

And did this headline writer get it wrong:
http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/robotic-pianist-teotronica-plays-faster-than-a-human/#!bmVPca

Can I not say that my cat is a sadist?
Or can my cat be a person?

It seems like God would be, at least, a theist.

And perhaps a solipsist? A reductionist?

Edit: In my short lived Catholic HS experience I was informed that God is a person -- a personal being.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I really can't see how you reach that conclusion. In fact I really can't make much sense of any of your post.

Well, we humans can only do what's logically possible, non-contradictory, and limited to
our own nature, so if that's the definition of omnipotence, then we are all omnipotent.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, more or less. Unless your definition requires the pianist to be human, in which case being human must be added to the list. But if you do not include being human, then I think you will find it practically impossible to go beyond {create music with pianos}.

But then with such a vague definition of the word "pianist", I could simply walk up to someone who has no interest in playing the piano, offer them £50 to mash the keys for a while, and with the fact that I have created music (by causing sounds to emanate from a piano where they would not have without action on my part), I could also claim that I am a pianist!

If you don't agree with the above then perhaps at least one further characteristic we would need to add is some ability to personally manipulate the piano keys.

Originally posted by Agerg
But then with such a vague definition of the word "pianist"....

Until you flesh it out more, the definition is vague.

Similarly, the definition of 'creator entity' is vague. If it turns out the universe came from a black hole, was that black hole a 'creator entity'? Or does creation mean something more, or does 'entity' mean something more?
If so, I still don't think you will get very much further than the definitions.

If you don't agree with the above then perhaps at least one further characteristic we would need to add is some ability to personally manipulate the piano keys.
And as you flesh out the definitions you will continue to confine what a pianist may or may not be. But mostly you are just making the confinement by means of definition, not by logic or by some investigation of the universe etc.
So for example an omnipotent creator God must be omnipotent. But that seems to me to be a trivial observation. It does not however follow that all possible creators of the universe are omnipotent.

Originally posted by Agerg
Why should not-lying be more perfect than lying!? ... setting aside the fact that we may not like being lied to, the act of a lie, paraphrasing you slightly, is to deliberately convey information which is believed to be not true in order to gain an end (and end which may be a positive one or a negative one (No kind Nazi ... no jews in my basement!)). In some ...[text shortened]... t even be sure you stated it correctly). I'm sorry but I cannot follow you on this argument yet.

I don't see the lying is imperfect thing either. Although in the case of God a white lie would be unnecessary as they could just protect the jews in the basement by making the Nazis forget to search.

I didn't derive anything I just wrote it down. One can always (at least in the theory) prepare states in linear combinations of eigenstates. Really each term should have a complex coefficient c(+/- 1/2) with the rule |c(1/2)|^2 + |c(-1/2)|^2 = 1. But for the terms of this discussion the equation I wrote down is good enough.

An alternative example is a particle in a 1 dimensional box. The wave equation is (Using f for the wavefunction as phi is unavailable):

Ef(x) = -h^2/2m * d^2f(x)/dx^2 + V(x)f(x)
V(x) = 0 if 0 < x < 1, and is infinite elsewhere. h is the reduced Planck's constant. This is solved by:

f(x) = ASin(kx), where k = pi*n = 1, 2, 3, ... ; is deduced from the boundary conditions, and fixes the energy. E = h^2k^2/2m. So let's measure the (vector) momentum. In terms of momentum eigenstates the wavefunction is:

f(x) = A/2i * (exp(ikx) - exp(-ikx)), or in Dirac notation where <x|k> = e(ikx), we have:

|f> = A/2i * (|k> - |-k> ).

So (up until the moment the momentum is measured) a particle in definite state of energy has momentum +k and momentum -k. Some real damage is done to the law of non-contradiction in quantum theory. What is the case is that the result of the measurement must be one or the other, so we can't measure the particle to simultaneously have two momenta. The problem lies in trying to use classical logic where one shouldn't.