Yeah, if you’re looking to get into Tchaikovsky, I’d recommend either Children of Time (if you like sci-fi) or The City of Last Chances (if you like fantasy). His work is always based in his experience as a zoologist, so his environments and animals are second-to-none (even the series of which City of Last Chances is a part contains well-considered biology whenever “monsters” from “the grove” are described)
I’m confused by this. The only people I’ve read complaining about the “strongly worded letter” tendencies have been criticising the us democratic party for its dereliction of duty and utterly feckless disregard of their constitutional oaths in the face of this fascist xenocidal administration. Where are you seeing the imprecations against Europe?
EDIT: You know what, I just read the rest of the thread OP’s comments, and I rescind my point. They spew enough anti-european angst to fill a couple of comment sections.
You should read “Vaster than Empires, and More Slow” by Ursula K Leguin, which is basically this. Also “Shroud”, and “Alien Clay” by Adrian Tchaikovsky have somewhat related ideas, but are full-blown examinations of the concepts of utterly alien intelligence. Honestly, you’d probably like most of Tchaikovsky’s work. He does a lot with “alternative manifestations of sapience”.
Since the person above didn’t actually give enough information for someone to understand:
Look up “Acid Mine Drainage”. Its when sulfide minerals react with water and oxygen to produce sukfuric acid, and it occurs in pretty much every mine once it’s opened, and continues to accrue and leak for thousands of years. Ancient Roman mines are still leaking the toxic, acidic sludge today, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
Not when the vast majority of music rights holders are not the artists. Then it becomes a far more apt comparison.
I’m not arguing that they couldnt become omniscient, which is the entire point of what I wrote, which it seems you elected not to read, given that this reply is simply a restatement of your prior take. Though I would point out that your definition of omnipotent is clearly flawed: any truly omnipotent being could do things which, to mortals are logically impossible (miracles). It seems you may just be cherry picking your definitions. In modern Christian faith (you know, the thing we’re ostensibly talking about), there are 4 words which are used to describe the traits of god: omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent. If you decide you want to redefine one of them, that’s your affair, but don’t expect me to agree with you.
Not a web novel, but this is the plot of the movie “About Time”.
Omniscience is not implied by omnipotence. Choosing to be omniscient would first require a perfect knowledge of in what ways they are not omniscient. A sniper in a tower may have the power to destroy any living thing within 300 yards, but if they don’t know what their target is, the power to act doesn’t grant them the knowledge necessary to do so effectively. This, writ-large, is why most people list omniscience in addition to omnipotence among the powers of the abrahamic god (omnibenevolence has been added by much more recent Christians who don’t read the bible). Being all-knowing is required in order to effectively utilise omnipotence, but is not implied by it.
Also, A is listed as the base assumption, and is thus not redundant. It is what you fall back on if B-D are held true, by reductio ad absurdum. Since the other three cannot be true with our definitions of them, and they must be true in order to fit the definition of God according to these people, A would be true by reduction.
I’m not going to defend the person above from having to confront the Problem of Evil (of which confrontation they seem to be in desperate need), but to play YHWH’s advocate for a moment:
They are suggesting that they subscribe to a more traditional view of “hell” than is depicted in, say, Dante’s Inferno. They claim that Hell is merely the absence of god’s love, and that that existence without god is torment enough. They are not suggesting that God has set up a lake of fire for Samael and the other fallen angels to prod at you with pitchforks. Their idea of hell is like an endless void of nothing, alone with your thoughts, cold and alone. Simply “without”.
Now, why an omnipotent being would choose to create a universe where there is such a dichotomy in treatment is another matter. The existence of an Omnibenevolent, omnipotent and omniscient being is mutually exclusive with our experienced reality, unless our definition of “benevolent” does not accurately describe the being’s morals.
I.e., Either God:
(A) does not exist; (B) is not all-powerful; © is not all-seeing/knowing (D) is not all-good.
Fair enough. I only interact with Lemmy, nebula and dropout, so I don’t really see that side of things (the few YouTube things I can’t get on nebula are science-related, so they’re fairly unlikely to join the Turd Reich)