Timeline for Are the Q not as intelligent as they try to lead other species to believe?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 15, 2023 at 5:53 | comment | added | lucasbachmann | @Nerrolken an IQ of 2005 would give Q the top score if every single lifeform in several multiverses were ranked. scifi.stackexchange.com/questions/152906/how-does-q-know-his-iq | |
| Sep 14, 2023 at 3:02 | answer | added | Quisizyx | timeline score: -1 | |
| Aug 18, 2015 at 17:54 | answer | added | Stephen Collings | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 18, 2015 at 12:00 | vote | accept | Katai | ||
| Aug 18, 2015 at 7:03 | comment | added | K-H-W | Perspective may be the issue -- to the Amoeba in the petri dish, the researcher is clearly both omnipotent and omniscient, but not from the researcher's perspective, nor that of his/her peers. But, if the researcher could communicate with the amoeba, it would probably be simpler to claim both than to try to explain something far beyond the amoeba's understanding. A bit of condescension might be understandable, too. Then again, despite all his/her power, if the amoeba is Naegleria fowleri, it could well be able to kill the researcher if handled improperly. | |
| Aug 18, 2015 at 1:03 | answer | added | revenant | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 17, 2015 at 22:51 | answer | added | Deltharis | timeline score: 2 | |
| Aug 17, 2015 at 21:38 | history | edited | Daft | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Aug 17, 2015 at 17:03 | comment | added | DavidS | @Nerrolken Not being able to do something while being described as omnipotent is not a "fussy technicality", it completely invalidates the word, which IS an absolute (and certainly not a casual term!). However this is getting to chat levels so I'll leave it at that. | |
| Aug 17, 2015 at 16:22 | comment | added | Nerrolken | @DavidS Actually, my comment was in reply to Katai, that's why I addressed it that way. But since your comments said basically the same thing, it doesn't matter. My point was, you're both taking casual terms to be absolute. If I'm writing a novel I have total control over the story, even though I am technically restricted by the range of words available in my language. The Q can be "omnipotent" in the sense of being able to do basically anything, without being tripped up by fussy technicalities. Especially since their "omnipotence" is self-described, and they're famously arrogant. | |
| Aug 17, 2015 at 15:23 | comment | added | Jaydee | Omniscience and omnipotence are mutually inconsistent philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/3252/… | |
| Aug 17, 2015 at 15:11 | comment | added | DavidS | @Nerrolken (I'll assume you meant to address that to me). In the general case yes, in this case I disagree, for two reasons. The first is that it explains that lack of omniscience. The second is that omnipotent carries with it a whole host of unwarranted assumptions - you said the Q can change the nature of reality in "any way they want", but that's untrue. Q can be stripped of their powers, showing at least that they aren't all powerful. Since this question is trying to define the abilities of the Q I think it's important to very clearly define the boundaries of these abilities. | |
| Aug 17, 2015 at 14:57 | answer | added | Joe L. | timeline score: 11 | |
| Aug 17, 2015 at 14:39 | comment | added | Nerrolken | @Katai That's the kind of thing that makes more sense in a philosophical discussion than a practical application. If a being is capable of altering space, time, the laws of physics and the nature of reality in any way they want, they can be said to be omnipotent, even if it's possible to come up with a hypothetically impossible scenario. Just because you could create a 10,000-pound pencil doesn't mean I can't confidently say "I can lift any pencil." Radical exceptions don't negate the use of descriptive words in conversation. | |
| Aug 17, 2015 at 14:22 | comment | added | DavidS | @Katai My point is that calling them omnipotent is misleading - omnipotence is paradoxical. Could a Q create a stone so heavy they couldn't lift it? | |
| Aug 17, 2015 at 14:14 | comment | added | Katai | @Nerrolken yes - you can do -anything-, including giving yourself omniscience, right? That's exactly why they cannot be omnipotent, since they would also be omniscient as well (unless they choose to not give themselves that ability - which would be strange, considering how they act) | |
| Aug 17, 2015 at 14:12 | comment | added | Nerrolken | @Katai Omnipotent means you can do anything, which is related but not actually the same as omniscient, which means you know everything. | |
| Aug 17, 2015 at 14:11 | comment | added | Katai | @DavidS I cannot recall every episode of course, but from the memory-alpha wiki: "Q was a highly powerful entity from a race of omnipotent, godlike beings also known as the Q. " | |
| Aug 17, 2015 at 14:10 | comment | added | Nerrolken | Also worth mentioning: when Q is made into a human, he mentions his IQ as being 2,005. Even if this was sarcastic (which is likely), it likely means that an IQ of 2,005 would be high even by Q standards (otherwise he'd have picked an even higher number). This gives us a rough estimate of his possible intelligence, and more importantly, a probable confirmation that his IQ can be measured, and thus isn't infinite. | |
| Aug 17, 2015 at 14:09 | comment | added | Layna | As this is only speculation, I will leave this here. 1) Omnscient, yes... but not necessarily AWARE of all of it. You may see a picture in front of you, but miss bits and pieces there, by focusing on OTHER bits. 2) The Nature of time in Star Trek: Perhaps Q was surprised because what happened to him during the punishment "had not happened in the future before" (time-travel-grammar is hard...), AKA Some other Q's lost their patience and CHANGED the timeline? | |
| Aug 17, 2015 at 14:08 | comment | added | DavidS | Have the Q ever really claimed to be omnipotent? The very concept is classically paradoxical. I've never read them as claiming to be omnipotent and omniscient (ie Gods), just very very close. They've stated that humanity could one day surpass them, after all. Also, you seem to list intelligence as binary - human intelligence and then omniscience. There are states between! | |
| Aug 17, 2015 at 14:08 | comment | added | Nerrolken | Just because you have access to all information doesn't necessarily mean you've noticed everything. The Q likely see branching realities of possibility, and thus may not be certain what will actually come to pass. | |
| Aug 17, 2015 at 14:03 | review | First posts | |||
| Aug 17, 2015 at 14:09 | |||||
| Aug 17, 2015 at 13:53 | history | asked | Katai | CC BY-SA 3.0 |