Given this conclusion and the reductio ad absurdum of the possibility of a plurality of coexistent omnipotent agents presented earlier, an argument in favor of such a possibility by analogy with quantum entanglement undermines itself, thereby reinforcing that reductio.
plurality(Arendt's anthropological framework linking human conditions to activities)
The fact that men, not Man, live on the earth and inhabit the world — referring both to equality (all human beings belong to the same species and are sufficiently alike to understand one another) and distinction (no two human beings are ever interchangeable, each being an individual with a unique biography and perspective on the world)
quantum entanglement(Used as evidence against reductionism about relations)
The fact that the quantum states of entangled particles cannot be described independently of one another
reductio ad absurdum(Offered as a second method capable of proving a universal negative.)
A proof method that establishes a conclusion by showing that its negation leads to a contradiction.
undermines(as used in argumentation)
Weakens or damages something by removing support for it or showing it doesn't work.
If a plurality of coexistent omnipotent agents were even possible, then possibly, at a time, \(t\), some omnipotent agent, \(x\), while retaining its omnipotence, endeavors to move a feather, and at \(t\), another omnipotent agent, \(y\), while retaining its omnipotence, endeavors to keep that feather motionless. Intuitively, in this case, neither \(x\) nor \(y\) would affect the feather as to its motion or rest. Thus, in this case, at \(t\), \(x\) would be powerless to move the feather, and at \(t\), \(y\) would be powerless to keep the feather motionless! But it is absurd to suppose that an ...