Talk: Omnipresence

Just for the record, I didn't get omnipresence confused with teleportation. 

While I was editing the page I was thinking of what to put for 'nigh-omnipotence'. I came to the conclusion that being able to move freely (i.e. teleportation/time travel) through the physical universe to any given point, at any given time, in and out of spiritual realms, was the closest thing to true omnipresence.

Just wanted to clear that up.

Toe Knee 17 (talk) 20:26, October 16, 2015 (UTC)

Told ya

Sorry didn't a BUNCH of people state no one was nigh-omnipresent/omnipresent?? Oh look I was right! Beyonder (talk) 11:06, December 10, 2015 (UTC)BeyonderGodOmnipotent

How were you right? Toe Knee 17 (talk) 23:11, February 8, 2016 (UTC)

Omnipresence page

I think this page is necessary because The Darkness was actually omnipresent. She was the beginning, which implies that she was "everywhere" since nothing else, including any other space, existed. Since the term refers to "being everywhere at once" and there was nothing else than the Darkness, it's reasonable to say the she was indeed omnipresent. That also justifies the need to this page. 89.204.135.44 06:29, December 16, 2015 (UTC)

This gets really tricky, but I'll try to present in the easiest way possible. But let me say, existence without space to occupy is completely incoherent. Now, if she was at the time the only thing to exist, she couldn't have been everywhere as there was no place for her to be. But none of this make any sense, as her war with God and the archangels had to have taken place somewhere, but where? Maybe this is where the Empty comes in, possibly. Point is, arguing that the Darkness possesses or possessed omnipresent is groundless. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:46 AM, December 16th 2015

Actually, non trivial existence without space is possible - Assuming consciousness is turing computable. Turing machine's doesn't require any space, you can have a universe with conscious entities without any size, it's just difficult for the human mind to imagine life without (metrical) space. Let's forget this rather theoretical models for a moment. The Darkness could also actually be space itself, means it's self containing, like possibly our own universe. If the Darkness was the first thing that existed (before space itself), then the first space was actually the Darkness itself (but again, conscioussnes doesn't necessarily require space), accordingly she was truely omnipresent once. If we take The Darkness' statement literally, she probably offered the first space ever. Lambda1 (talk) 11:41, December 17, 2015 (UTC)

No, NOTHING can exist without space. Consciousness requires a mind, a mind/sentience requires a body, and a body requires space to exist. Literally nothing can exist without space to exist in. The Darkness was the first thing to exist, but there was no space for her to occupy, therefore we can't prove she is omnipresent, unless, well, she shows us she can be everywhere. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:48 PM, December 17th 2015

If you are familiar with science, you can surely provide some reasonable arguments instead of just insisting that I am wrong. Space itself is just a mathematical structure, there a simpler structures which are also capable of producing complex constructs like the human mind, therefore saying nothing can exist without space is wrong since you simply ignore science. When it comes to Supernatural, as I said the Darkness itself could also be space. She mentioned that she was the beginning, I think I made quit clear that if we take this literally, then there was no space - she was the first space. Lambda1 (talk) 05:40, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

More concrete "a mind/sentience requires a body" is a wrong assumption if a mind is computable. Lambda1 (talk) 05:50, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring science, but keep in mind, I'm not a scientist. And neither are you, I'd assume, at least not professionally. Also, no need to be a dick. Why you being such a douche? Even if computation itself doesn't require or take up physical space, computation means it's related to a source like a computer, which requires space to exist. -- ImperiexSeed, 2:37 AM, December 18th 2015

Good morning, I left you a message on your talk page. Well, I studied math and made my bachelor thesis in it, but I am not actively work on an university or a scientific research institute, I ended up in computer engineering. However, I don't think that the personal qualification is a necessary requirement to make scientific arguments. The good thing about science is that it works with verifiable arguments and therefore you can verify everything I say about this. Computation in this universe requires indeed physical space, the mathematical model of a computer - a turing machine - doesn't necessarily require physical space. However, from the platonic view, that doesn't really matter, you might want to take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis Other universe's doesn't necessarily have any (metrical) space at all. Lambda1 (talk) 08:51, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

Keep further in mind, despite no character in the SPN universe is omnipotent, we have a page for omnipotence. I see more convincing arguments to support the Darkness' former omnipresence, but even if the Darkness was not omnipresent, we can keep the page for local-omnipresence. Certainly, the Darkness was locally omnipresent as she broke out her prison. Lambda1 (talk) 02:52, December 19, 2015 (UTC)

To be fair, though, the omnipotent and omniscient pages were created back during season five's run, where God basically was those things. Yes, I would agree that the Darkness can be in more than one place at once, as we saw when her smoke form enveloped the whole landscape of the area Dean and Sam were in, but to say she can be everywhere, is speculation at this point. Guess the page can stay as long as we clarify this. -- ImperiexSeed, 10:00 PM, December 18th 2015

Yes right, back then God was considered to be omnipotent and omniscient. As it is already mentioned that no being on the show has shown this ability, I only renamed the "nigh-omnipresence" part to "local-omnipresence". Good - It seems, we established consencus. Lambda1 (talk) 03:25, December 19, 2015 (UTC)

This page should be deleted or modified, The darkness was not omnipresent, she was not the Empty, she didn't even know it existed, or she would have know The cosmic entity.Malthael Archangel of Death (talk) 18:17, October 23, 2018 (UTC)

This page is wrong, the Darkness was not omnipresent: she said she was everything that existed but we know it's false. She WAS NOT the Empty. Omnipresence within only one small portion of reality is an oxymoron. Technically, each human is omnipresent within the confines of their own bodies as well. Malthael Archangel of Death (talk) 10:35, October 11, 2018 (UTC)

Delete

This page should be deleted. No one in the show is omnipresent, so the page is unneeded. -- ImperiexSeed, 1:04 PM, February 8th 2017

I disagree, I cite the above arguments by Lambda as my reasoning. Zane T 69 (talk) 18:27, February 8, 2017 (UTC)

Again, I oppose deletion. The ability was said to be formerly possessed by the Darkness when she said she was once "All there was." Honestly, it seems like your trying to get your way, now that Lambda is gone from the wiki. Zane T 69 (talk) 20:05, February 13, 2017 (UTC)

Um, "get my way?" No, that's not correct. You realize, as *I* stated in the above argument, she didn't occupy any space, as there wasn't any, meaning she wasn't everywhere and simply was all there was at the time. There has to be space to be for someone to be somewhere. Therefore, even she wasn't omnipresent. This is a loose example, but the only type that is even remotely comparable, so bear with me. But, take a white room, with only one cup it, doesn't mean the cup's everywhere. -- ImperiexSeed, 3:30 PM, February 13th 2017

That's a poor example. You said there wasn't any space, that's your opinion and little more than simple fan fiction. The show, writers, and the like have to be considered a higher form of canon. We have the Darkness' statement, which is more canon than your opinion.

To exist, you logically have to occupy space or be completely intangible, or formless. The Darkness' presence was illustrated by moving darkness, implying her form could be darkness itself. Her existence could have been contained in a blank slate like the empty or a blank, yet dark, empty universe; or a tiny bubble that only expanded when God came into existence.

Most of what I said just above was speculation, and was to make a point. She said she was all there once was, canon, over and done with. I get that you don't like it, I'm not crazy about it either, but sadly we have to take what she said as fact unless ret-conned. Zane T 69 (talk) 20:54, February 13, 2017 (UTC)

Ok. -- ImperiexSeed, 4:04 PM, February 13th 2017

This page is wrong, the Darkness was not omnipresent: she said she was everything that existed but we know it's false. She WAS NOT the Empty. Omnipresence within only one small portion of reality is an oxymoron. Technically, each human is omnipresent within the confines of their own bodies as well. Malthael Archangel of Death (talk) 10:35, October 11, 2018 (UTC)

Confirmation

Was there any confirmation that The Darkness was actually Omnipresent? Just so people wont be misinformed ya know? Beyonder (talk) 11:09, April 10, 2018 (UTC)BeyonderGodOmnipotent

She was, and I quote "the beginning". She was all that there was at one point. Logic dictates she was everywhere because she was also everything.

Orion (T-B-C) 11:15, April 10, 2018 (UTC)

False information

The Drakness lied: The Shadow is older than her, and since she didn't occupy the space where it lived she WASN'T omnipresent.Malthael Archangel of Death (talk) 17:21, December 19, 2018 (UTC)