Talk:Omniscience

Free will

The concept of Omniscience is indeed incompatible with that of free will and avoidance, and my discussion article here argues the case deductively, addresses objections, and is open to further debate. I am a Professor Emeritus of Philosophy Ron Barnette

---

Moved from main:

God created the starting parameters for the universe.Thereby guiding each creation's fate.

I don't really see how this resolves anything, at least, not in a way different from saying that free will is an illusion... Evercat 03:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gödel killed God?

Why there is no mention or link of mathematician Kurt Gödel in this article? His paradoxon has a lot to do with know-all or the impossibility thereof! 195.70.32.136 10:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Definition of omniscience

The proposed solution to the problem fails with the following considerations.

Consideration 1:

What is meant by "possible" here? This is a matter of clarification and not an actual problem.

Consideration 2:

Suppose that pure skepticism is true. Then it seems that knowledge that p is impossible for all persons x. Therefore, the antecedent of the conditional is false. Hence all persons x are omniscient.

Consideration 3:

Suppose that x is a rock. Then for all propositions p, it is impossible that x knows that p. Hence, the antecedent is strictly false. Hence, the rock is omniscient.

Why not just have a dictionary deffinition?

There's no question as to Omniscience contradicts free will without defining what those terms mean in the first place, and defining what true omniscience would mean in the first place.

If you take Omniscience to mean - "Knows everything", then there's nothing that contradicts free will. Just because x knows that 2+2=4, doesn't stop a 2+3 from occuring, and it doesn't mean x doesn't know what 2+3 equals and that x still knows what you did last summer. X might not know what you do next summer, but x will know what you do next summer, and even if X does know what you'll do next summer it doesn't mean you didn't have any choice in the matter, it just means X knows what you'll do next summer.

There is a simple deffinition of what Omniscience is, how it exists or manifests is irrelevent to the meaning of the word, though strictly speaking, only actual omniscience is actually omniscience. Zelphi 14:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This article contains the best paragraph ever. "If N is true, then nobody knows that N is true; and if N is false, then it is not the case that nobody knows that N is true, which means that somebody knows that N is true. And if somebody knows that N is true, then N is true; therefore, N is true in any case. But if N is true in any case, then it (= "Nobody knows that this sentence is true") is logically true and nobody knows it. What is more, the logically true N is not only not known to be true but also impossibly known to be true, for what is logically true is impossibly false. Sentence N is a logical counter-example to the unqualified definition of "omniscience", but it does not undermine the qualified one." Whoever wrote that deserves a pat on the back and a crisp new fifty-dollar bill. --Random passer-by

This sentence makes no sense.

"Certain theologians of the 16th Century, comfortable with the definition of God as being omniscient in the total sense, to rebuke created beings' ability to choose freely."

Not sure exactly what it was supposed to say, either. Certain theologists argued? Concluded?

Tubba Blubba (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Try "Certain theologians of the 16th Century, comfortable with the definition of God as being omniscient in the total sense, rebuked created beings' ability to choose freely."

Better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.38.132 (talk) 22:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This Article Seems to be Original Research.

This article sites almost no references, and seems to be quite biased in favour of one author's opinion. I believe this is original research, and suitable for revision or deletion.

OgosLay (talk) 10:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This Article Seems to be Original Research is false.

References are well listed, Further may be needed to satisfy. If you go under the references listed such as "Information: The material physical cause of causation" there are a ton of references that deal with information theory to which also include references to wiki.

• http://mmmi.robinfaichney.org/physics.html
• http://mmmi.robinfaichney.org/physent.html
• http://mmmi.robinfaichney.org/causation.html
• http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Information
• http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Physical_information
• http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Algorithmic_information_theory
• http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Free_Information_Infrastructure
• http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Information_theory
• http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Medium
• http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Information_processing
• http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Observation
• http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Entropy
• http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Systems_theory
• http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Cybernetics
• http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Library_and_Information_Science
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information

1) Information is any type of pattern that influences the formation or transformation of other patterns. In this sense, there is no need for a conscious mind to perceive, much less appreciate, the pattern.[citation needed] Consider, for example, DNA. The sequence of nucleotides is a pattern that influences the formation and development of an organism without any need for a conscious mind.

2) Systems theory at times seems to refer to information in this sense, assuming information does not necessarily involve any conscious mind, and patterns circulating (due to feedback) in the system can be called information. In other words, it can be said that information in this sense is something potentially perceived as representation, though not created or presented for that purpose. For example, Gregory Bateson defines "information" as a "difference that makes a difference".

3) If, however, the premise of "influence" implies that information has been perceived by a conscious mind and also interpreted by it, the specific context associated with this interpretation may cause the transformation of the information into knowledge

4) In 2003, J. D. Bekenstein claimed there is a growing trend in physics to define the physical world as being made of information itself (and thus information is defined in this way) (see Digital physics). Information has a well defined meaning in physics. Examples of this include the phenomenon of quantum entanglement where particles can interact without reference to their separation or the speed of light. Information itself cannot travel faster than light even if the information is transmitted indirectly. This could lead to the fact that all attempts at physically observing a particle with an "entangled" relationship to another are slowed down, even though the particles are not connected in any other way other than by the information they carry.

5) Another link is demonstrated by the Maxwell's demon thought experiment. In this experiment, a direct relationship between information and another physical property, entropy, is demonstrated. A consequence is that it is impossible to destroy information without increasing the entropy of a system; in practical terms this often means generating heat. Another, more philosophical, outcome is that information could be thought of as interchangeable with energy. Thus, in the study of logic gates, the theoretical lower bound of thermal energy released by an AND gate is higher than for the NOT gate (because information is destroyed in an AND gate and simply converted in a NOT gate). Physical information is of particular importance in the theory of quantum computers.

Perhaps you can outline for us what references you would require. And please be specific to what you want references on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.66.19 (talk) 06:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Misleading Article

The following statement has nothing to do with omniscience, it is in fact the opposite of omniscience, and if included in Wikipedia, should be in the article on Logic (not this one). Also, this is not a theological argument and ought not be in the section titled theological representations. To quote:

"The latter definition is necessary, because there are logically true but logically unknowable propositions such as "Nobody knows that this sentence is true":

           N = "Nobody knows that N is true"

This entire section is a section on logic, not on omniscience, and ought to be moved.

11:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by OgosLay (talk • contribs)

Deleted fallacious argument

I have deleted the following fallacious argument: "God cannot be Omniscient and Omnipotent. If he is omniscient, he knows exactly what he is going to do and he cannot change that, so he is not omnipotent."

The conclusion is that God is not omnipotent. However, the author of the statement unknowingly assumes the conclusion and then proceeds to prove the conclusion. Observe:

"Hypothesis: God cannot be Omniscient and Omnipotent.

Assumption 1: Assume that God is both Omniscient and Omnipotent.

Assumption 2: Furthermore, assume that God and God's attributes are bound by the rules of logic.

Then by the rules of logic we can make logical argument "X" (the one above) and thus prove the hypothesis."

Such is the format of the argument. However, the author unknowingly assumes Assumption 2 by the very act of trying to frame the argument within the confines of Logic. In other words, the author first has to make Assumption 2 in order to be able to apply Logic to Assumption 1 and derive a conclusion. For if Assumption 2 is not made, then the author can not know a priori if the rules of logic can be applied to God in order to make the argument that was made. Therefore, if one wishes to use Logic "against" God, then one MUST make Assumption 2 that Logic can in fact be used. But Assumption 2 contradicts Assumption 1. For if God is Omnipotent, then his power and abilities are not constrained by the rules of Logic. As it were, if God is subject to the rules of Logic, then already God is not omnipotent, and therefore any argument which disproves God's omnipotence is only proving what was already assumed and thus is fallacious. (See "Begging the Question".) Therefore, one can not assume the truth of both Assumption 1 and Assumption 2, as the author did here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.221.121.103 (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Great, but doesn't this qualify as original research?95.34.228.178 (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Deleted argument needs to be reinstated!

The argument that GOD can not be Omniscient and Omnipotent at the same time is a fact. In a state of pure omniscience (going by the actual definition and not the self-invented definition), it could not create information to which it would not already know. Thus self-collapses the entire premise of omniscience and omnipotence existing together. Especially if you pay close attention to the words "infinite", and "everything" within the definition of omniscience. However, to say a GOD is just "all knowing" would still be jockeying for solipsism because it's referring to all that is knowable. This includes knowing who I am to the point of literally being who I am in every infinitely knowable way. To say a GOD can Choose it's level omniscience is merely self-admitting that our own existence as individuals would bound it to not being omniscient by definition. Unless of course you want to try and make an argument for solipsism. Thus attributes like limitless, boundless, uncontained, omnipotence also completely collapse.

What if logic is actually God's way of operating? His very nature? Without God, nothing exists, not even logic. Nothing. No information, no matter, no energy. Logic is merely the way that God operates. So God has full range to everything that logic permits, and since logic is merely a manifestation of God's nature, God does everything within his nature, and since only God and his nature exist, God does everything possible within existence itself, because God is existence. Have you EVER considered the fact that omniscience is much more from a human's perspective, because, from the above argument, God can do a lot, just within a certain logic, so God can do everything, and many of the things that God can do, we cannot do. Perhaps omniscience is something that applies only to us. Omni meaning "all". All, meaning "all that is permitted within the world that we inhabit, and perhaps even beyond". All referring to "REALITY" itself. God IS reality. To be honest, none of your arguments impress me. Solipsism isn't necessarily a necessity, only for omniscience as you comprehend it. 99.255.50.214 (talk) 04:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Everything else is irrelevant. As far as humans are concerned, God knows everything and can do anything to us. The whole philosophy and theology behind this is for it to make sense to the human mind, somewhat. Basically, everything else is simply a matter of the wording that you choose and what your specific wording is supposed to convery... 99.255.50.214 (talk) 04:50, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Free Will is a logical fallacy

Free will however is a logical fallacy to begin with because we do not have the free will to do or choose to do whatever we want. This is with or without a GOD's existence. I don't have the free will to not die, or the free will to choose to have my friends and family not die. I don't have the free will to be as powerful as the said deity itself. Thus free will is inherently a logical fallacy to which only leaves you with limited choices based on 3 fundamental principles:

Positive Negative Neutral

And these can and are relative to individual perceptual interpretation and opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SniprKlr (talk • contribs) 06:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaking WILL with ABILITY. You can have the WILL, the WANT, that someone goes through all of those things you described. You can WANT to become a God. That's your WILL. Whether your will can become a reality is dependent upon your actual abilities to carry out your will. Not having free will is when you are, for example, under the influence of powerful drugs that take away the judgement skills from your rational, conscious self and your actions are determined by chemicals that entered your brain. Also, if God exists, then "positive", "negative", "neutral", in terms of morality at least, need not exist in the sense that you think of them. In atheism, there is no true meaning to anything, not objectively. A pantheist conception of God will have a very different system of morality from a monotheistic conception of God. As with dualism, panentheism, etc. And if a God does exist, it is possible that this God has moral values and if he expects us to follow them, they are no longer subjective. Way too many assumptions, not too much proof. The same facts that you give can just as easily be interpreted into a different system. 99.255.50.214 (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

About the argument that uses the statement "Nobody knows that this sentence is true".

The whole concept sounds really good in writing, but it is fundamentally flawed. For one thing it is trying to pass off a completely abstract sentence as proof that there are things that are impossible to know. That's not what omniscience is about. The only thing the original author verified is how flawed human language is. Though he/she used a complete sentence with correct grammer, it describes absolutely nothing but the sentence itself. Here's where the author's line of logic fails.

In order for something to be true, it has to correspond with reality (all physical things) at all times. The word "sentence", describes a totally imaginary thing (not physical), which makes that statement impossible to correspond to anything in this physical reality. That right there is what causes the whole argument to fall apart to anyone who takes the effort to break it down.

Being omniscient simply means knowing all things about everything (be it absolute or relative) that ever existed and occurred, exists and occurs now, will exist and occur in the future, and also knowing everything that would occur in any thought up scenario that doesn't break any of the physical laws of the universe, so long as it is, or completely reflects reality. Now I myself am kind of skeptical about the idea of omniscience, but that particular argument just doesn't work. It was a nice try though, and well thought up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dezbeast (talk • contribs) 18:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Non-physicality can not exist

Problem with the above is that a non-physical reality can not exist. To say a reality made of nothing would exist is essentially not understanding what the term nothing means. It's understood that there can be no Phenomenon without material physicality. Nothing can't do anything, nor can it literally be anything. And the physical laws that govern our universe also govern information theory. They are 3 basic laws to which not even a conscious mind could exist, do, or create without. These are the same properties of energy:

Positive Negative Neutral

Example:

You must physically feel emotion in order to have an emotion. Or you must physicality to even convey an emotion.

Thus in order for something to be true, it must correspond with reality. If it's beyond reality then it doesn't actually exist beyond the conceptual idea or thought of it. It's relevance thus becomes rather irrelevant. However, imaginary things are still considered physical patterns just as an image of an apple is in your mind. Yes, scientists have successfully extracted images from a persons mind among other things ;).

http://pinktentacle.com/2008/12/scientists-extract-images-directly-from-brain/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-0eZytv6Qk

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12037941/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9Ci3QCgPxg — Preceding unsigned comment added by SniprKlr (talk • contribs) 07:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

So what if scientists have extracted images from a person's brain? They'll do much more in the future if that actually impresses you. The problem is that the mind has qualia, things that are so difficult for physicalists to deal with that some of them resort to Eliminative materialism, claiming consciousness doesn't exist at all. At the very least, our knowledge and comprehension of physics as we currently understand the laws is incomplete and we will need to figure out how subjective experience is possible given how the physical world is all objective, etc. Also, you can't call information truly physical because, yes, while the substrate on which it runs on is physical, the same information can be conveyed on a computer screen as well as on a piece of paper, on a piece of wood, etc.. So information is something that is more abstract in a certain sense because it doesn't matter what physical substrate it is on, it is the patterns. Also you seem to draw very drastic conclusions from concepts that are so poorly understood in the first place. Not everyone even agrees on the same characteristics for God, or that the characteristics you assign to God mean the same thing as they do when you use them in your arguments. It is not at all settled that omnipotence and omniscience are incompatible. That's just under certain conceptions of those two terms and what they actually mean, and more importantly, how it is that they could become a reality, or be a reality, since God is supposed to be eternal. 99.255.50.214 (talk) 04:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

And I only read parts of what the article said, but I didn't bother after a while because it seemed like it all relied on the premise that since God knows everything, he must somehow be solipsist. It's more like a computer that can monitor everything going on. God just knows everything that's currently happening, and he also has a vast memory of everything that has happened. I'm skeptical of whether or not all conceptions of being "all knowing" MUST include the future, it could be that "all knowing" is only under what is POSSIBLE to know. So while you and I can never know everything, God can know everything that is possible to know about the universe, and perhaps if God created anything outside this universe, he knows about that too, what happened from the moment he created whatever it is that he created, and what is currently happening right now. If it is impossible to see what the future will be, then it is simply not possible to know that, and therefore, omniscience does not include knowledge of the future, since it is a not a possible thing, and certain definitions of omniscience do claim that only what is possible given God's nature can be knowable by God. And since God's nature was involved in the thought process he used to create what he created, his nature and overall logic will be made manifest in his creation. Alternatively, one can claim that, since God is outside of space and time, he is basically the "first cause" of everything and he can go both inside of time and outside somehow, and perhaps he can view everything when he is outside of time, so he he might see the future. It's not something we can explain with 100% accuracy, but then again we shouldn't expect to know so anyway. This is mere speculation by humans who have yet to truly understand all the secrets of the universe, yet we want to know all there is about things beyond it as well. That's just utter arrogance. It's ok to speculate, but for now, we mustn't draw any conclusions as to what there is out there. Just because human intellect can't comprehend it, doesn't mean it's not knowable, especially when talking about such difficult subjects like "God". A thousand years ago, we knew nothing of the wonders that science has brought us today, and a thousand years into the future, it will be even more incredible, no doubt. Philosophy is always improving, etc. Don't make claims about God, we're still so ignorant. I remember I think it was Socrates who once criticized the intellectual authorities of his day for trying to make rules for nature, but they also wanted to go beyond that and make rules for the gods, etc. Not too impressed. 99.255.50.214 (talk) 04:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The first paragraph is basically wrong

The first paragraph of this article is pretty abusive to majority of people.

Saying

 Omniscience is the capacity to know everything.

is great and correct, but it should be the only sentence in that paragraph, or the first paragraph should reflect information objectively.

Now it immediately starts from definitions of Gods. But, excuse me, religion is just one of the things, and it all should be listed below in the list among other things like science, and possibly any other kinds of fulfillment a human can have relating the subject.

Now it starts exclusively from introduction of confrontation.

Capacity to know everything IN NO CASE implies that you have to become ultimate retarded zombie, before you can know everything.