Jump to content

Talk:Omniscience

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 97.64.183.178 (talk) at 06:45, 25 February 2014 (Added additional information.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Changing Arguments to Preach

There are several edits in the paradox section to where people are editing the paradoxes and skewing the context of those paradoxes to preach the religion. Hence, the skewing is often incoherent to the context of the paradoxes to where many of which are self-refuting fallacies, or appeals to ignorance. This needs to stop. Distorting a paradox to mean something other then what was originally intended is dishonest, and provides no intellectual foundation for this page.

--SniprKlr (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)== Deleted assertions ==[reply]

I had undone an added assertion that the paradoxes can not be applied due to scripture or various arguments of how they don't think they are applicable. An appeal to ignorance is not relevant to the paradox, nor do they defy the paradoxes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SniprKlr (talk • contribs) 10:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'm no expert on the subject, but I believe Gödel doesn't belong here for some reasons:
1) This article is already too messy to enter something as technical as Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. Not even Wikipedia dares to tackle with them but in natural language. Quite a few much more important and a lot simpler concepts are already fuzzy and ill-defined, such as what we mean by omniscience, knowledge, logic or paradox, not to mention God. Above all, all articles should be clear - and any mention of Gödel would be anything but that. Plus, too many texts already draw flawed conclusions due to scientific misconceptions, or have actively been written using techno-babble for the benefit of demagogs, specially with regards to touchy subjects such as religion - do we want Wikipedia to follow that road (I deeply suspect this would soon happen)? I believe you want to enter science in the discussion of the existence of a supreme being, and I find it not only advisable, but deeply important. However, it should be done with care, since it can prove to be a double-edged weapon.
2) I can't see any paradox in Gödel's work, on the contrary: he reaches two well-established conclusions through very elegant (and very original) methods. Now: is an infinite regress a paradox? It is in the eye of the beholder, and anyway I don't think the question is relevant here, at least not regarding Gödel. I can't say the same about many views in Set Theory, however: omniscience and the (non?)existence of a Universal Set does strike me as quite relevant.
3) Simplifying, Gödel's theorems state that the number of systems needed to list all axioms for all true propositions regarding IN belong to a set the cardinality of which is bigger than aleph-naught, and therefore impossible to compute algorithmically. The cardinality of real numbers is also bigger than aleph-naught (at least 2 to-the-power-of aleph-naught; if the continuum hypothesis is accepted, it equals aleph-one -no need, but it would make life much more simple). Therefore, if the conclusions drawn from Gödel's work that can be used as an argument against omniscience stem from the uncountability property, the same can be stated from the mere existence of real numbers, and in a much less complicated way. No algorithm can list IR, not even if it is granted an infinite amount of time. Cantor, not Gödel, should be our theocide of choice. Yet I personally don't see how to establish any clear links between cardinality and omniscience, specially if the Set Theory used doesn't recognise a Universal Set, although I somehow understand your line of thought. It's interesting, and you should expand it if possible as long as references can be found.
4) If cardinality is not the problem, then the nonexistence of an algorithmic recursive method for a given problem must be. Yet I fail to see why the lack of a recursive solution for one problem should lead to dismiss omniscience. Even recursive functions can prove very tricky for certain given initial circumstances: most NP-hard are close to unsolvable if deterministic Turing machines are found to be the only computational devices in practice. Granted, you avoided any problem linked to IN or aleph-naught because it implies that, being t the time needed for a recursion step, if t→0 (or even t=0, which maybe some people would argue is possible) then even NP-hard could be crackable in theory. Yet, why bring Gödel into the equation? There's an infinite number of sets that can't be constructed using recursive methods. Gödel just proved that mathematicians dealing with Theory of Numbers will never run out of work as long as the discipline remains within our cognitive boundaries.
5) Your text and, most of all, the heading you've chosen implies that, if omniscience is proven to be a self-refuting concept, the whole idea of divinity falls apart (if I have interpreted both correctly)... when the only thing that falls apart is the possibility of possessing such an attribute. Proving that no elephant is pink doesn't disprove the existence of elephants -unless it's a sine qua non for the whole notion of elephanthood (some might say Abrahamic theology has a history of doing something along these lines; yet again, it may only mean theology is not very thorough a discipline, or most probably that I'm not versed enough to draw even an educated guess).
6) Last, but not least, omniscience can only be discussed in terms of human logic as long as the editors are human, which is actually one of my big but's to the whole article. No-one has proved that logic (and the whole discipline of mathematics that stems from it) is anything more than a formal language, very useful, but a language nevertheless. If anything, Gödel may have set boundaries to our methods of making sense of the universe... which in my opinion could be a huge hint that both us and our current methods are inherently limited. However, this also has an effect on the whole aim of the article: if logic has been proven to have its limits, then maybe logic is not a valid language to approach the subject - even more, the attempt is then circular, since we discuss logic using logic. That, if it can be found not to be original research, and therefore properly referenced, should definitely belong in this entry.
If you find bibliography that can link Gödel with omniscience in a meaningful and simple way, you should post it, and I would be more than glad to read it... since as you might have noticed, in my opinion this article is more than a little bit biased, underdeveloped, and much too vague as it is. It's not my intention to start a war, but I sincerely believe it should altogether be erased.
Personally, what I quite frankly don't understand is why "Omniscience" belongs in the category of "Attributes of God" (which god, by the way?). It's an abstract concept that has nothing to do with divinity. Should we find an alien black box that had all the answers to every single problem that could be asked, would we call it God? (The idea is not mine; it's from Penrose's "The Emperor's New Mind", I seem to remember; although it was used for a whole different purpose). It should be the other way round: if anything, divinity should have to do with omniscience. The way it is, it feels just as wrong as having "Speed" under "Attributes of the Cheetah" (crude analogy, accepted... I just can't come up with something better right now). It worries me, and I'd like someone to explain why the only approach seriously considered has to do with religion. Jordissim (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Your statement regarding how for something to be true it must correspond with reality is a pretty bold sentence, and one that attacks basic philosophy such as Platonism. Real numbers are not only infinite, but uncountable; therefore, should the Universe be found to contain just a finite number of particles or, in a more accurate scenario, either a finite/infinite aleph-naught number of information states, then a contradiction arises which is only solvable by eliminating the whole notion of IR. I'm giving just one example, but plenty can be found in Mathematics. Tricky, and under discussion. I agree with you in terms of Physics, but Pure Sciences are a completely different case. 83.56.136.196 (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC). (My apologies, I forgot to sign in) Jordissim (talk) 17:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.201.226.100 (talk) 15:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

This article in recent edits has become really biased. And some of the arguments aren't even making sense, like:

"The seeming paradox is easily resolved when one conseders that such a Being would be Personal. In this respect, the omniscient Being would freely choose what to create and instantiate in reality. If information theory is correct, the sum of all total would be best characterized as the "contents" of the Divine Being's "mind", when the words used in quotes represent analogical terms due to the limits of human language and epistemology."

Some of the sources are also dubious. Jepumy (talk) 16:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

"One other theory could include"

Is this original research? Copied from another source? I don't think that speculation ought to be a part of an encyclopedia article. Lots of problems with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.49.116 (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentals of the natural scientific comprehensive omniscience

Omniscience is not a set of dogmas. Omniscience is not completely full knowledge of everything. Omniscience is constantly updated, develops and rebuilt.. Alex makeyev (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is constantly enrich and develop knowledge archives of omniscience of Humanity. Alex makeyev (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably already was developed frameworks for omniscience as the natural scientific comprehensive omniscience is the capacity to know everything that there are in the Universe.

The new physical and mathematical term of the spherovector is offered in the present monography «The Synergy of Spherovectoral Fractals of the Universe». The are offered hypotheses about the spherovectors fractals structures and relations in the Universe; the physical mechanism of the synergia of the present-future of the time-being of physical fields and objects of substance in the space-environment of relative movement – immovabilities, change-preservation. Probably, this work is puts bases of the General Theory of the Relativity of All (the Physical Mathematic, Uniform Theory of the Field, Uniform Theory of Everything, Uniform Science About All, Natural Science, Natural Philosophy). Otherwise it is possible to name it «the General Automutual Spherovectors-Fractals of the Universe Synergy». The fact of the publication of this monography it is means come true development of Mankind in the TechNoosphere, the basis of Synergosphera.

Primary source:


The author has discovered a universal four-factor algorithm to determine the holographic structure and function at all levels and forms of matter. Considered some of the manifestations of this universal holographic law in the microcosm, the living matter, the human person and human society. This work could be a reference book of basic knowledge about universe, man and human society for the statesmen and public leaders, politicians, educators, psychologists and psychiatrists, physicians of all specialties, political scientists, sociologists, officers of all services and arms, heads of industry, agriculture, services; specialists in all specializations. This book can be used as a textbook for teachers, students, postgraduates and doctoral students of all majors. This book presents some basic concepts of natural science and integrated interdisciplinary system of representations that describe the universe, normal and abnormal anatomy and physiology of the individual and society as a biophysical field of verbal thinking of living matter, which quant-beings are human. The open publication of publicly available on the Internet that provides all of the sane people the opportunity to familiarize yourself with these natural scientific knowledge about the universe, man and human society. For every day everywhere to apply this knowledge in practice.


Primary source:

Alex makeyev (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


In our theoretical studies, we have obtained evidence of the priority of a German doctor, a chemist and physicist Julius Lothar von Meyer in the development of the Periodic Table. He has published articles on his classification table of the elements in a horizontal form (1862, 1864) and vertical form (1870), where the series of periods are properly terminated by an element of the earth metal group. A French scientist Charles Janet has published a detailed edition of the periodic table (Adomah periodic table) by Meyer (1928), which clearly displays the logical manifestation of all the elements of the substance of physical and chemical properties according to their location, to be counted up from the end to the beginning of their periods.

As for the Meyer-&-Janet’s periodic table of elements, we supplemented it and modified to the modern extended form to display the elements of vacuum and atomic levels of matter. This table may be supplemented by elements of molecular, biological, intellectual, information, technical and cosmic levels of matter. That is why we have named the table: The matrix of automatisms of matter.

The principles of the matrix of matter automatisms of the universe we have put into development of the matrix of elementary articulation of speech-&-thinking sounds of intellectual, information and technical levels of the matter. Its algorithm is implemented in our intuitive system of alphabet letters of the flat Simmetric for sighted people and Braille Simmetric for the blind ones, in a keyboard with the pivotable keyblocks for the sighted and the blind. Following the ancient idea of holism, we propose to understand the universe as a material hologram, which permanently evolves and grows proportionally to the cycles of automatism of emission and absorption, as well as of merger, division and reconstruction of objects and fields of the vacuum, atomic, molecular, biological, intellectual, information, technical and space matter levels.

We join the voices of all reasonable people claming to protect the sphere of science and industrial production from the scientific experiments, industrial and military technologies that could kill all of mankind; and promptly exclude the application of all the philosophical doctrines and social practices, evil productivity of which would be identified by the geniuses of mankind.

The great advantage of the theoretical scientific work on the hazardous physical experiments we show forth here by the results of our theoretical scientific work that unite all areas and disciplines in the hologram of boundlessly developing comprehensive natural science omniscience and relying on the framework of fundamental knowledge that was open and transmitted orally or in written form by generations of geniuses of the mankind.

Keywords: non-existence, existence, the universe, matter, fractal, spherovector, synergy, automatism, cosmological law of Hubble-&-Makeyev , the element, the periodic table of elements, matrix, the period, the quantum, electrino, electrostatic field, magniton, magnetic field, the photon, gluon, atom, molecule, the cosmic objects, the man, hologram, speech, thought, speech sound, alphabet, omniscience, formula of good and evil, genius, noobiotechnofield.


Primary source:

Alex makeyev (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expand

This article primarily deals with theology and should also present omniscience as a superpower. 108.216.20.135 (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some information in the "The omniscience paradox of creating information and knowledge" is most likely original research and should be removed.

I believe that much of the information in the "The omniscience paradox of creating information and knowledge" section is original research and should either be removed or be edited to remove the original research. A simple google search of some of the lines from the "ABC's argument" such as "There can be no choice, or decision made without information" and "One can not do anything without information" seem to point to an internet user that goes by the name of TheJackel who regularly posts in forums, but beyond that, the information does not appear to come from anywhere credible. Even the all caps capitalization of "GOD" seems very similar to how TheJackel spelled the name in his posts. If someone can provide a credible source for the ABC's argument, I will happy remove my objections, but at this point in time, I believe I have sufficient evidence to prove that much of the section is original research and needs to be edited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.64.183.178 (talk) 06:05, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that the "ABC's argument" seems to appear around 9 August 2012 where-as I can find the argument by TheJackel as far back as Jul 26, 2011 according to this link http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/inforamtion-the-material-physical-cause-of-causation-t24118.html so it doesn't appear that TheJackel is simply copying his information from the Wikipedia, but rather the information is coming from TheJackel.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Omniscience&oldid=597033858"