In joint attention, the world is experienced as perceptually available for a plurality of agents.
Action entails speech: by means of language we are able to articulate the meaning of our actions and to coordinate the actions of a plurality of agents.
It is a product of action because it arises out of the concerted activities of a plurality of agents, and it rests on persuasion because it consists in the ability to secure the consent of others through unconstrained discussion and debate.
By contrast, according to supra-individualists, when a plurality of individual agents perform a joint action, then the agents have the relevant propositional attitudes (beliefs, intentions etc). in an irreducible 'we-form', which is sui generis and as such not analysable in terms of individual or I-attitudes.
Arguably, by analogy with entanglement, if a plurality of coexistent omnipotent agents is possible, then there could be "entangled" omnipotent agents, A1 and A2, such that it is metaphysically necessary that A1 endeavors to bring about a certain state of affairs if and only if A2 endeavors to bring about the same state of affairs.
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.
Among contemporary philosophers of religion, Richard Swinburne (2008) holds that a plurality of coexistent omnipotent agents is possible.
If such a reductio ad absurdum is sound, then a plurality of coexistent omnipotent agents is impossible.
This line of reasoning appears to reduce the notion of a plurality of coexistent omnipotent agents to absurdity.
Another possible defense of the possibility of a plurality of coexistent omnipotent agents appeals to quantum mechanics.
In the light of the foregoing, is it possible that there be a plurality of coexistent omnipotent agents?
