Talk:List of reality bending phenomena/@comment-2001921-20120919115344

For what it's worth:

The appeal to the Rule of Cool can only be invoked if the end result is, in fact, cool. Cool is to some extent a matter of perspective, but taking the rather pointed example of silicon-based life here, I have never seen a silicon-based lifeform outside of the book A Martian Odyssey that was not blatantly based on CHNOPS with the word "silicon" and perhaps variations in living temperatures thrown in. Also bear in mind that designs for silicon-based life are not really impressive aesthetically.

There's also the problem that a lot of things which are very cool would break the wiki if they were allowed to appear. I'm sure you can think of examples.

Another thing is to make the 'laws of physics' as if they were laws in the informal sense. They're not; they're descriptions of what the universe does. You can't bend or break them. You can bend reality from the norm accepted by the human brain, but to 'break the laws of physics' is philosophically and scientifically nonsensical.

Introducing limits based on logic would prevent said silicon-based lifeforms from arising. And also that same example wouldn't be silicon-based life if it could be silicon-based life.

A lesser individual might appeal to 'a wizard did it', or 'a Titan did it', but a self-inconsistent universe spells the end for serious drama and is generally rather limiting.

There is also the problem that this might make people think it was okay to completely flout plausibility-based rules.

I maintain that the best solution is a healthy balance- Cool, Original, Plausible. If the creation excels in one of those attributes, then some leeway can be given on the others, but only if it truly does excel. High standards for each are important.