»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Are We Omniscient?
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Are We Omniscient? |
|
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Could it be that we know everything, but just not perfectly? |
||
| © Copyright 2008 Essorant - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
No. There is a point of maximum calculability defined by the age, size and entropy of the universe which, along with the speed of light and minimum time taken to move information across the Planck length, precludes the ability to know everything. A god could theoretically know everything in our universe, if she existed outside our universe and timeframe but had read only access to it.  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I don't agree with that Grinch. I will tell you why. It is because the rest of the universe is just an extension of what is "right here". And I know what is "right here", an extension of "right there". The rest is just "right here" stretching further "right there". Therfore, knowing "right here" is knowing "right there" too, just not perfectly. In this way, we must be omniscient, just not perfectly so. Going and studying "right there" will just improve, adjust, perfect our knowledge, not remove any complete absence of it "right here". |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Get a dictionary, Ess. Imperfect omniscience is right up there with applying a superlative to the word unique. After you look up omniscience and unique, you can browse through to oxymoron.  |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
That is the same trick modern scientists do with the word "science" forcing their stipulations on a word that literally means "knowledge" not "institutional knowledge or knowledge only with a special institution's method or terminology". Likewise omniscient literally means "all knowing", not "allperfectly knowing". The same way one knows even himself but not perfectly to the extent of every particle, likewise we know the whole universe, but not to the extent of every specification, in fact sometimes very generally and imaginatively, and in fact in a way that may keep focus on the principles of the universe, artistically cultivating our strength in doing so, instead of cluttering endless specifications and pretending that is the only thing that may be "science" or even "omniscience". Despite us knowing everything, I am very glad to use art to pedestal knowledge, and even more glad to use imaginative art, instead of mechanical and unimaginative ways of using and expressing knowledge. |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Even if I were to accept that you know everything, or can know everything, right here, I still have to challenge your extrapolation that 'the rest of the universe is just an extension of what is "right here"'. I don't believe you actually know that. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Mind you I said "right here" is an extension of "right there" too. The point is that all places are simultaneously one place, the universe, and we know that "place" or "universe" to varying extents, just not perfectly to every possible condition or aspect. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I can answer your question, Essorant, but I don't see any point in posting it here. Since here is just an extensions of there, you already know what I was going to say. Now, would you please turn your head so I can get undressed in private before retiring to my bed? Your omniscience is making me uncomfortable. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
ROTFL Ron are you kidding? clothes are no barrier for the omniscient voyeur Essorant! And I agree with everyone else, No. Unless you want to tell me the specific object I thought of at 1:34 AM Ess? No clues Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Don't worry, it is not too difficult to understand if you see something as an extent of all, the whole universe, instead of just an extent of itself. If you understand everything as some extent of everything, then you may understand how knowing anything is also knowing something of everything. That is, we know everything to some extent, but we don't know everything to every extent. And that some extent to which we know everything may be very limited, not just by our minds, by even by our choices, choosing this instead of that. Anything is itself, but it is also an extent of the the whole universe, an extent of everything, and therefore knowing anything is also knowing everything, to some extent. It is not just humans, but all our fellow earthlings, other animals and insects, that are omniscient. We all know all to some extent. |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
"Imperfect omniscience is right up there with applying a superlative to the word unique. After you look up omniscience and unique, you can browse through to oxymoron" *snort* I don't remember Ron ever making me laugh so much. "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Gosh Susan, I hope you didn't snort coffee out your nose  |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Me either, not since the first time I looked at that jpeg of his. JJJJust Kidding there ol' Mod. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, You are taking a specialized use of the word "omniscient" and using it as though it were the commonly understood use of the word. You make a similar argument about the word "science." Especially about the word "science," I feel you have an interesting point to make. "Science" is only recently become conflated with "scientific method." It is unclear that this confusion has been to the benefit of "science" yet or not in my opinion; the results are still coming in, and I believe they are quite mixed. Be that as it may, your understanding of "omniscient" and the understanding of others who are attempting to talk with you about your proposal ("Are We Omniscient?") goes no place productive until you reach agreement on terms. As a glance at the discussion so far will quite possibly lead you to understand. On the other hand, the whole basis of the discussion seems to hinge on the promotion of exactly this confusion. There seems little to talk about without this piece of confusion to dance around in the discussion. The discussion becomes essentially meaningless. The way to test the correctness of my theory here is simple. Decide on a common definition of omniscience. If that definition is successful and nobody needs to resort to specialized uses of the word and the discussion continues with fascination and fervor, I will have been wrong. If the discussion fizzles, or turns into another jargon-fest, perhaps we need to look again at how we've framed the discussion in the first place. Or perhaps somebody has some more interesting suggestions. Curiously enough, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
The notion of "the black box" has always seemed interesting to me when I think about discussions like this one. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Omniscience means to know all things, in greatest detail, the ends of all means, all possible futures, and all necessary futures. If you're talking about something else, I say invent a new word. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Stephanos has given a pretty good definition of what I understand to be the generally understood meaning of the term. If it has other meanings, then to the best of my understanding, they are not the meaning that most people have in mind when they use the word but are some secondary meaning or obsolete or jargon meaning of the word. What is the primary understanding of folks here about the generally understood meaning of this word? |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
No, Ess. Sorry. I'm not. I can't even figure out all the what when where whys and hows about everything in my life, let alone the rest of us, nor would I want to. Too much to think about and too many things I don't wanna see or know. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: Just curious why a transcedent God would be bound by a "read only access" rule? Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Lots of reasons. The most interesting being that if she had more than read only access to our universe and timeframe she’d lose both free will and the necessary prerequisite to be godlike - omnipotence. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch, So "read only" is more conducive to omnipotence? Strange way have you of preserving that important attribute. The incarnation doubtlessly involved God taking on limitations (even to the point of death), and yet they are chosen limitations to achieve his desired end. From the Christian perspective, history and experiential knowledge would deny "read only", no matter your seemingly-logical disavowel of divinity who acts within time/space. I guess the best way to understand it is by noting the contradictions of your own faith. You are an atheist, a material being in a materialistic universe bound by time, chance, and physics, and yet you believe you have real insight about the whole show, real knowledge, and meaning to your life beyond sheer material process. If you won't allow God to have freedom (if he chooses to act in our physical universe) I don't see how you can allow it for yourself. I guess there's some degree of "faith" involved either way? Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: It’s not a case of me allowing or disallowing - I’m simply stating a point. As I see it, an entity outside this universe and timeframe could know everything in this universe, everything that has been and everything that will be. To do that though two conditions must apply, for our future to be known it must be predetermined, which removes our free will, and the second condition is that the entity cannot interact in this universe and timeframe without losing her free will and omnipotence. She can only have read only access. If you can see any way she can interact without extending her omniscience to cover her own actions in her own universe and timeframe I’ll be happy to listen. quote: History? Experiential knowledge? Do you mean stories and hearsay Stephen, or have you some verifiable examples of gods interaction in our universe? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: For our future to be known, it only needs to be known. For a God who transcends time (in addition to acting within time), whatever happens is observed. Yes, you may say that everything that happens is certain, but not all predetermined (as in directly caused) or necessary (as in it could not have been differently). Unless determinism and omniscience are confused, freedom may be retained. quote: But you still haven't explained why "read only" is a prerequisite for omnipotence and freedom of will. quote: It's a false dilemma, unless you're going to admit that knowing what you're going to choose to eat for lunch tommorrow means you're not free to choose otherwise. There's a difference between "not free" and "have chosen". And you still haven't explained to me how you can have freedom of will and knowledge in an atheistic materialistic cause/effect universe, if you are a mere piece of it, a link in material process. quote: Anything can be called into doubt Grinch, whether it should be or not, don't you agree? And I, like you, know from experience how difficult it can be to debate with the religiously convinced.  It's not that there's no good evidence ... It's just that whenever we've discussed evidences in the past, you've demanded nothing less than unassailable proof. And thankfully it's too early for that. Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: If the future can be known it cannot be changed. The ability to change, particularly your mind and actions, is a pre-requisite of free will. If you know the future, especially your own, you cannot claim to have free will. quote: There isn’t enough time in this universe to know everything, however an entity outside this universe and unrestricted by the constraints of time could, theoretically, know everything in this universe. She would be able to view what was, what is and what will be, as I said earlier though it would have to be a read only knowledge. If the entity could interact in this universe the entity would also require omniscience in her own universe - to know her own future actions and interactions in this universe - and if she knows her own future, as I pointed out above, the future is pre-determined and she loses free will. Omnipotence - the ability to do anything requires free will. quote: If you or any other entity has the omniscience to know what you have for lunch tomorrow then that’s what you’ll have for lunch tomorrow, you can’t use your free will to change your mind and still claim omniscience. quote: You can’t, but then again I never said you could. In a cause and effect universe true free will doesn’t exist and there isn’t enough time to have knowledge of everything (omniscience). The future cannot be known because it cannot be calculated, at least, not in this universe. quote: You were claiming historical fact Stephen - without proof history is generally regarded as a non scientific theory, a story or a myth. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: If God has known a future that will indeed happen (indeed has happened from his perspective being transcendent of time), then why the need to change it? If you say its certainty rules out God's freedom to choose, then certainty rules out your freedom to choose as well, whether you know it or not. You can't have it both ways. Your future also is as certain as if it had already happened regardless of your psychological state. Knowledge definitely complicates the issue Grinch, but it is merely one more layer to the paradox that already exists for you as well ... not just concerning God. quote: Yes, its quite pardoxical isn't it? But the fact remains that if you've chosen spaghetti, and therefore know what you'll be eating for lunch, it doesn't therefore follow that you are not free to do otherwise. Can one make a definite decision and still be free? If not, you've destroyed the notion of free will completely, and made it to mean the opposite of what it is ... the ability to choose. quote: Again, unless you believe that your own decisions imply absence of freedom, then you have no argument here beyond sophistry ... since choosing is the essence of free will. Are you arguing for eternal indecision as the essence of free will? quote: If that's the case Grinch, then omnipotence may have the freedom to be somehow free and not free at the same time. There's definitely something like this going on when one considers the incarnation, and theories of middle knowledge (Molinism). Of course our speculation is "as in a glass darkly" and always borders on the ridiculous. But my guess is that it is kind of a larger version of your own paradoxical freedom in a universe in which your future is certain whether you know it or not. In discrediting omnipotence with the playful pardoxes of free will, you are discrediting your own ... or do you admit you are a determinist? quote: Ah. There we have it. No need to discuss this anymore with you Grinch. You are only believing and advocating your view because you are absolutely and slavishly bound to believe it by the physical properties of your own cerebral cortex and the impersonal events which gave rise to your present configuration of atoms. March on automaton. I'm content for now, having demonstrated that by insisting that divine pardox is unworthy to accept in view of difficulties, you've theoretically deconstructed your own humanity, and undermined human knowledge, reason, and choice. quote: There is proof for Biblical History Grinch. It may be denied nonetheless. There are those who deny the Holocaust. There is such a thing as revisionist history. But the point I was trying to make is that Historians will unanimously say that empirical proof is not part and parcel of their field. Stephen |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I’ve no idea which two ways you think I’m trying to have it, I’ve no problem accepting that my future is a predetermined effect of proceeding causes. I’m simply pointing out that god can’t be god if she has anything other than a read only knowledge of the outcome. quote: So you are free to choose anything you like as long as it’s spaghetti - are you related to Henry Ford? quote: So if you know the future and know that you have spaghetti for lunch tomorrow you’re claiming free will because there’s five alternatives on the menu you could have chosen? As soon as you know the future you lose the ability to choose and along with it the essence of free will - you cannot have anything for lunch EXCEPT spaghetti even if you wanted to. Put it another way Stephen, if you know that you’re going to eat spaghetti tomorrow and choke to death on a meat ball are you saying you’re choosing to die, freely and willingly? quote: Yes. So do you if you claim that your god can see the future. quote: How? As far as I can see my humanity, human knowledge, reason and choice aren’t negatively affected one iota simply because I accept causality. In fact this particular automaton functions reasonably well accepting that notion, why do you see it as such an anathema? quote: Well I’ve never met one. Every historian I’ve every read or spoken to adheres firmly to one of the principles of the scientific method - before claiming anything as historical fact you supply empirical proof that‘s judged by your peers before being accepted. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Free will has nothing at all to do with changing your mind, Grinch. It only addresses the ability to make up your mind. quote: Grinch, your argument rests on the thesis that God can exist outside of time -- something you seemingly can't escape in trying to argue your points. You talk about lunch tomorrow, when you've already presupposed there is no tomorrow. Did you have free will to choose your lunch yesterday? You can't change your mind about that, either, you know. That doesn't obviate either your absolute knowledge of what you had or your free will in originally choosing it. To God, standing outside time, your lunch tomorrow is no less certain and your ability to freely choose it no less profound. Similarly, you talk about God knowing His "own future actions and interactions in this universe" when you've already posited there are no constructs to call past, present and future. It is your own language, I think, and indeed your own temporal entrapment, that is creating paradoxes. Remember that old book, Flatland? You're acting like a two-dimensional square, trapped in a world of width and length, without the ability to either see or even think in a third dimension of height. You can't see the sphere, but rather, when it chooses to interact in your two-dimensional universe, you see it only as a circle, that tiny part of the sphere that touches the infinitely paper-thin boundaries of your own awareness. In spite of what you seem to see, Grinch, God is not a circle. Of course, all you're really arguing is that absolute knowledge and absolute power, either together or separately, inevitably create paradoxes. I thought we already agreed on that? I think several years ago we even agreed it was a mathematical necessity? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
the problems of free will aside, I'm having problems with free time to respond to ya Grinch. I'll get back when I can. You an' Ron go at it in the meantime. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I agree with Grinch. Knowing all the shapes the universe came from and shall go to doesn't change anything. We are still limited to the same evolution of ourselves and universe around us, and therefore the same choices. But nevertheless we all have different extents to which we know about everything, and therefore these extents are adjusted and improved, and the things we know about differ in their extents as from our knowledge of them as well. Therefore the extent to which we know everything does not equal the extent to which everything happened, happens or shall happen. The extents are unequal. And in that inequality is where there is still room for surprise. Knowing one point directly is still knowing every other point indirectly, which is a different extent, for every thing is just a variation of the same thing, the same universe. One thing is everything: the universe. And we know that thing, everything, just to varying extents. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Ron, It was a previous conversation we had regarding free will that sparked my thinking with regard to an omniscient entity. In that conversation we got to the point where a future decision in a temporal and causal universe was fixed and unchangeable but free will, or the impression of the existence of free will, was unaffected - similar to where we are in this discussion. That thread fizzled out before I got the chance to extend the logical argument to include an entity outside a temporal and causal universe - I thought this was a good point to put that right. Flatland? There’s a couple of problems inherent in drawing parallels from that book Ron, the first is that you open up the possibility that the god that resides in spaceland is only omnipotent and omniscient when it comes to flatland and she has her own god in pointland on so on into other dimensions. The second problem is similar to the question I was addressing - could an omniscient entity outside our universe interact in ours. The book, as far as I understand, simply presumes that the sphere can interact with the square without explaining how. Paradoxes? I don’t think you can use a paradox as a get out of jail free card Ron, the best outcome you can achieve by trying is simply to muddy the water or deflect the question I believe that there are several types of paradoxes, some can be resolved, mostly by introducing a third or fourth truth value, by amending the question or by applying simple logic to the problem but some paradoxes describe things and situations that cannot exist. The problem is recognising what type of paradox you’re dealing with. Stephen, I’ve managed to take a day off today - unfortunately my wife has managed to fill it with things to do like fit a handrail on the stairs, fit an additional radiator to the existing central heating system, replace the garden fence and install cable television in one of the bedrooms. Take your time - I may be a while. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I have no doubt that just like us God doesn't know something unless it is present to know about. If a square shall become a circle, it is still only present to know as a square. You can't know that it shall eventually become a circle unless you know about it indirectly through another square that already became a circle, remembering the square even though it is a circle now and knowing something else that this present square has and that that one had, by which it shall do the same thing. But knowing your memory is still only knowing what is present and aligning your knowledge of the present square with your memory, it is not knowing something that isn't even present to know about in the present square itself. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
It looks like I am bane unto this thread, So let my name be Atropos instead. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: And I'm simply pointing out that by definition, God can't be God if he has nothing more than a read-only knowledge of the outcome. If you can't understand how, I'm also pointing out that you accept your own freedom of choice (in practice and moment-by-moment belief if not in philosophy) even though your own future is absolutely certain. That's what I mean by your having it both ways. You can't deny God choice, just because you can't demystify the divine "how", when your own obvious ability to choose is shrouded in the same kind of mystery, albeit smaller. quote: The "even if you wanted to" phrase, is what your argument hinges upon. But it defies the very nature of choice. Since to choose invariably means to "want to", your strawman of constrained choice doesn't stand up to scrutiny. The knowledge of a particular choice remains a secondary issue. The mystery (but obviously real nonetheless) is choice itself divine, human, or otherwise. You don't lose the essence of freewill by deciding, you affirm it. quote: If to see and to cause were the self-same thing, then why does language itself differentiate? Ron brought up a good point about the past. Does seeing the past necessarily mean to have caused it? If not, then the future can be no different than the past in this regard. quote: I didn't say that your knowledge, reason and choice were affected ... since in reality, you are not grid-locked by material causation. What I mean is, philosophically you have deconstructed your own humanity, and undermined human knowledge, reason, and choice. Thankfully this inconsistency and error in your thinking does not change the fact that you have a spark of a miraculous ability to transcend mere cause and effect and to make real choices in the world of time and space. I too accept causality Grinch. I just happen to accept that there is something that transcends mere cause/effect, so that the ground/consequent relationship involved with knowledge and choice can be real as well. If you don't accept this philosophically, you are merely fluxing chemistry with the illusion of individuality and will. I'm just arguing that you're more than your philosophy allows, being made (in some sense) in the very image of God. quote: You need to read up on scholarly method, historical method, and historicism if you think they are synonymous with the scientific method. Of course similar principles of inference are involved, but they are much less rigorous, and empirical reproduction is not an option. It is interesting to note also the effects of one's philosophy of history (as well as philosophy of science). As there is methodological naturalism in science which, as Richard Lewontin put it, cannot allow a divine foot in the door, there is also historical naturalism which a priori says that miracles can't happen. This kind of approach would conclude, for example, that the text where Jesus predicted the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem had to have been written after 70 A.D. because it simply couldn't have been known, whatever other evidence may be. At least you can see how presuppositions can make history (like science) more arbitrary than observational. The question when examining the gospels, (which the historians of "The Jesus Seminar" missed) should have been whether or not the miracles happened, not whether or not they could have according to 19th century philosophy. If you really think an orthodox view of the New Testament amounts to mythology that can safely and easily be discarded as non-historical, you should consider the works of N.T. Wright or Gary Habermas. Hope your projects are going well Grinch, Later, Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron, I don't think Grinch is arguing that a God outside of time can't be God .... but that a God outside of time cannot interfere/ intervene within our universe and still be God. You seem to be explaining the transcedence of God quite well to Grinch, but can you also explain how you think the immanence of God can fit in also with the notion of omnipotence / omniscience? I myself would suggest to Grinch that to reject insoluble mysteries offhand, would mean to deny his own humanity (for pardoxes abound), and so he ought to simply be more open on the grounds of the mysteries he already takes for granted. But from an apologetics standpoint, I'm curious how you would answer him. Any thoughts? Thanks, Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, It's not that you are bane unto this thread or unto us as long forgotten dead but rather that your ominscience demands we dare not joust such high and mighty hands. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
For such a "seperation" thoughts have spun, They see no longer how all things are one, And past and future are unotherwise Than all the present near or far from eyes, The change of shape divides things not all, Some squares are now just circles in the hall, While some are far less changed unto this day, However changed, we know them in some way. All things exist forever in this place, One head, but with an everchanging face. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: I like that. I couldn't say it, but I know that's close to what I would have tried to say. I hope I can remember it, because it's the first thing I've read in a while about choice that makes sense to me, between God and humans and between the objective and subjective and the unknown. I can have all three. Awesome. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Bingo! quote: I believe that my “obvious ability to choose” is only an illusion Stephen, that all future events are the culmination of a multitude of unavoidable causes made mysterious because it’s a physical impossibility to calculate all the variables and predict the inevitable. What I choose to eat for lunch tomorrow is as unavoidable as what I ate for lunch yesterday, the only difference being that I can’t know what tomorrows lunch is until- well, lunch tomorrow. Is that free will? Lets say I can see the future and know for a fact that I have chicken for lunch tomorrow, what happens to my ability to choose and where is free will once I know I can‘t choose anything but chicken? Now let’s re-introduce an omniscient entity into the equation, lets say that the entity knows that I’m going to have chicken tomorrow but I don’t. The reality is that I still don’t have any choice - I’m having chicken for lunch - but not knowing the future gives me the illusion of choice and free will. So far the entity only needs read only access to my future to be omniscient but what happens if he has more access? If the entity knows I have chicken tomorrow because she removes everything else from the menu or sends an angel to tell me to have chicken, once she knows that she can’t do anything other than tamper with the menu or despatch an angel. She loses the ability to choose and in essence her free will in the same way that I would as soon as the future is known. You could try to get around this by suggesting that there are multiple possible futures and that the entity knows them all and every cause, including her own interventions, required to achieve each. In that scenario she’d be able to retain free will but, trust me, that introduces even more problems that it solves. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: Then there's nothing more to say Grinch. If you really believe this, then your belief and mine are predetermined and fixed by impersonal forces, and it is only foolishness to go on acting like distinctions like right and wrong, logical and illogical, animate and inanimate make any sense whatsoever. Any persuasive tone you would use, is drowned in your own assertion of absolute fatalism. The advantage of my argument is that my description of human will is more fitting with how you (anybody, come to think of it) actually act and think outside of a speculative philosophy skirmish ... and even how you argue within. And if this belies your own (practical at least) belief in human will, then your seemingly logical disavowal of God is in shambles. Kind of reminds me of Zeno, the Elatic Philosopher who argued that he could logically prove that a flying arrow could never reach its target. Before you reply to me again, or not, ask yourself whether you really have a choice. Your responses must be constrained by the hermetic tyranny of the whole, since you surely can't be compelled by strength of argument. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Grinch, quote: When you do the equation 5 + 5 = 10, you always do the equation, and it is the equation regardless of whether you know the answer. Likewise for eating the chicken. The equation including your knowledge doesn't take away the equation, you still choose to do it. The limitation is not that you don't have the choice, but that a choice can only be one choice at a time and it is that particular choice at that particular point. Only being able to be one choice at a time doesn't stop it from being a choice anymore than your ability only to be a human at this time stops you from being a human That doesn't mean that you aren't being forced to eat the chicken, but it means that your power is the one that is predominately at work in the "force", moving your body to choose the food, rather than some other body moving you to it. Gravity influences you, but it does not force you to eat the chicken, the laws of the country influence you, but they don't force you to eat the chicken, the chicken influences you, but it doesn't force you to eat it. It is you that moves yourself most with voluntary "force" and eats the chicken: that is, you make the choice. And you do that regardless of how much you may foreknow it. [This message has been edited by Essorant (01-06-2009 09:01 PM).] |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Well that’s fairly simple to answer - no - I was always going to reply, this reply is evidence of that. If that’s not enough your omniscient entity could have told you that because she knew before you asked. quote: Then you understand why free will is simply an illusion. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
How reductionistic of you Grinch (I'm sidestepping for a moment the temptation to treat your reply according to your own philosophy, as white noise). Accepting causality does not demand that I disbelieve free will, unless causality has no modifier ... unless it is the only principle at work. Zeno's arrow still hits the target. G'nite. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
It is not bondage to the rest of the universe , but the the opposite that would deny choice: that is, being in some void detached from the universe. For the whole universe is what accomodates and gives us the power to be what we are in the first place and thereby also the power to have power over things, especially over ourselves, and thereby move ourselves and make choices. Bondage to the causality of the universe is what enables us to be humans and make choices in the first place, not what disables it. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, I'm not refuting causality. I'm refuting causality and nothing more ... or if you prefer, a pedantic insistence that causality rules out free will. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, I don't distinguish believing in a complete causality as being much different from the kind of determinism I believe in. A complete determinism or causality, in which every part partly gets to determine the whole is no problem, for that would mean will and choice partly determine the whole too. The problem is when you selectively choose out only the rest of the universe as getting to determine and cause things, and say that choice/willpower are the sole exception to the determinism/causality of the universe. If everything is deterministic and causal, that is a good thing, because then choice also determines and causes too, but if only some things are determining and causing (such as only God, gods, or only the rest of the universe), then we would not have choice, for the determinism would then not be whole (including us) but segregated to only (a) select other part(s). |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant, I still think you're minimizing the mystery. Try asking yourself whether your will is itself caused. If you say yes, then Grinch has to be right about there being no free will. Human will has an element of freedom involved which transcends mechanistic causation. Gravity causes a ball bearing to fall. Human will can jump off of a limb or climb down, and its decision can never be "caused" in the same way the path of the ball bearing is. In this conversation, like in the original question about omniscience, you can only make your case by changing the definition of the word. "Causation" has a distinct meaning which doesn't fitly describe the phenomenon of human decision. That's why the word isn't used that way ... except by defense lawyers perhaps. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You can't see the future, Grinch. To do so would require (and essentially be the same thing as) traveling faster than the speed of light. It may seem arbitrary, even perhaps capricious, but our universe won't let anything do that. quote: That's what Newton thought, too, Grinch. He was wrong. Heisenberg showed us that even infinite calculating power couldn't track the cumulative careening of billiard balls because, at the quantum level, those billiard balls are intrinsically unknowable. It almost seems like this universe has conspired to guarantee your continued free will? Fancy that. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I would also remind Grinch that Newton was a devout Christian. And as someone who understood causation much better than most, its notable that he didn't see the implications you're suggesting. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: I know that Ron - I pointed it out in my very first post. I wasn’t suggesting that I could see the future I was simply pointing out the effect of being able to do so has on the illusion of free will. quote: Did he? Heisenberg’s theory put very simply states that the act of measuring alters the measurement, which makes perfect sense if the observer has the ability to interact with this universe. For an entity with read only access that exists outside our universe to know the future she’d require far less calculating power. Granted she’d have to be unrestricted by time but it is theoretically possible. Or, if that doesn’t convince you, maybe like Newton before him, Heisenberg could simply be wrong. quote: I would remind Stephen that, as Ron pointed out, Newton had a history of being wrong. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch, if he's wrong about the question of God, he's can't possibly be wrong about that based upon the very thing he was wrong about in physics! He simply didn't see anything in his science that ruled out God; And now with the advent of quantum phsyics, how much less? Does Newton have to be perfect in order to know something? And anyway, it's not that Newtonian physics was all wrong, it is just incomplete ... just as Quantum Physics most definitely is incomplete. On the whole, I would be inclined to not brush aside so easily his take on whether causation cancels Deity. Besides, you keep launching us into a discussion of Divinity, when I've already shown that you haven't even squared the mystery of humanity. Unless you can show how your interlocked universe can support a ground/consequent relation (as opposed to everything being a cause/effect relation), you can't possibly be "right" about anything. Your beliefs are as fixed, necessary, and unrelated to truth as lichen that grows on a rock. When you explain the mystery of humanity according to your same criteria (that is congruent with your actions here on the forum- and doesn't just keep asserting that you have no will, all the while acting like you do), then let's talk Divinity. Until then you're stuck on first. quote: So could you. More ambitiously, I'll say that since your view makes any real knowledge illusory and impossible (which we intuitively know otherwise and act accordingly every day), you definitely are. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Ah, but it seems science would content that "the effect of being able to do so" is the real illusion, Grinch. quote: Sorry, Grinch, but read-only-access still implies an observer. And, of course, your simplification of the Uncertainty Principle can just as easily be stated, "the act of observing alters the observation." That's your theory, though, not mine. My comments about the uncertainty of the billiard balls wasn't directed at your contentions about God, but rather at your contention that free will doesn't exist irrespective of God. I'll admit that's a bit confusing, but I don't think the confusion is my fault. You appear to be arguing that free will doesn't exist. But if it did exist, you then go on, it wouldn't exist if there was a god. I was addressing your first contention, because if that one's true the other doesn't matter. Indeed, if your first contention is true, NOTHING matters and with the consequent blurring of past, present and future, all of us, not just God, already exist independent of time. quote: History? I wish I was wrong as few times about anything as was Newton about everything. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: If you can’t imagine the impossible Ron you restrict the limits of what’s possible. quote: Almost, I’m arguing that free will doesn’t exist in a universe dictated by causality but that an entity (a god if you like) outside this universe who had omniscient knowledge of our universe could posses free will as long as she only possessed a read only knowledge of our universe and its future. I’m also arguing that if she had anything other than read only access she cannot possess free will. Imagine the impossible Ron, be god for a while. To be omniscient in this universe you’d need to exist outside it and outside time. Theoretically from your universe you could know every cause and effect in this universe and still posses free will. However, if you interacted in this universe you’d need to calculate not only the cause and effect events in our universe but also all the cause and effect chains in your universe that culminated in your interactions. To do that you’d need to be omniscient in your own universe - you’d need to know every cause and effect and consequently your own future. Once you know what you’re predetermined to do you lose any free will you thought you had. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Agreed. quote: I could quibble a lot with your choice of language (the implication of different universes closes the door to other possibilities), but in essence and for the sake of discussion, I'll agree with this, too. quote: Again, the language implies a computer rather than a god, but I will nonetheless agree that God knows everything in all universes. Were that not the case, you too, like others in this thread, would be trying to redefine the meaning of omniscience. quote: And here's where you make a leap with no substance, Grinch. You've given us no reason to believe that knowing is at odds with free will. You keep saying it, but you aren't showing it. I know exactly what I had for dinner yesterday. And I am quite certain I chose it from a vast array of possibilities. I don't think my choice was predestined by anything (influenced, yea), but I'm absolutely sure it wasn't predestined because I now know what I chose. Knowing and choosing were separate things. Or, perhaps, you're suggesting that the order matters? That choosing and then knowing is different than knowing and then choosing? Is that what you mean, Grinch? Remember . . . we're outside the confines of time, now. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, quote: My answer is indeed yes. As mentioned earlier it doesn't make sense to wish will to be free or detached from the causes/powers that enable it to be will in the first place. It would be like expecting your computer to be free from being made from other things, but still expecting it to work. Expecting it to be made from nothing, but still be a computer quote: Yes, it does, Stephanos, so far as within that point it is free from being caused more from something else instead of yourself. But when you make the decision, you are still caused by yourself caused less by other things. It is different from someone/something else causing you more than yourself, but it is still cause quote: But the word is not confined to the simple, Stephanos. Causality is not just simple, but is also variously compound and complex. Why would its complexity not also include the complexity of the human will? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The future is presently the present, therefore how may we not all know about it? |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: No, I’m saying that knowing and choosing are mutually exclusive - you can have none or one but never both so the idea of order doesn’t even come into it. You know what you had for lunch yesterday Ron but you can’t choose to have anything different and if causality determines the events of tomorrow you can’t know with certainty what you’re going to have tomorrow. In fact you don’t really have a choice either because the future is as fixed as the past. The bugbear here is the definition of choice - you say that if there are five options but the reality is you can only select one you still have a choice. I maintain that all options must be an actual possibility for a true choice to exist. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch: quote: Sophistry. Do you honestly believe you have no choice but to keep posting here? Do you honestly think that you have no choice but to believe what you believe? How about answering my point about the ground/consequent relation as opposed to the cause/effect relation. How can the former exist if the latter is the sole principle at work in every instance? quote: No, the bugbear here is that you are, like Essorant, arbitrarily redefining words to suit your philosophy. So choice has to be transformed to mean something like indecision? Your error is this: all choices ARE possibilities, but they cannot be all actualities. What in tarnations did ya mean by "actual possibilities" anyway Grinch? Words are not so elastic as to fit private eccentricities. To choose means to pick one action from an array of potentialities. If you want proof, you'll never probably get the kind you typically demand. But human psychology affirms it in everything, from congratulating someone on getting a good test grade, to commending faithful monogamy, to disapproving of someone's actions. Your own actions constantly belie that you think you have real choice. Or is that just your illusion? Last time I considered your statement about choice being an illusion, I wondered whether or not you were still deluded about this. (stands to reason that if you know its a delusion, then your no longer deluded right?) And if not, why you are doing such a good job at pretending otherwise? You need an Emmy Award. Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Of course I could have, Grinch. And did several times. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: Did you seriously expect me to reply to that Stephen? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch, if you have no will in the matter, I have no idea. My point is, you seem to be one of the few who have "seen through" the illusion of free will. You act as though you still believe it. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, quote: No offence, but I think you are much more arbitrarily trying to lock words into stipulations of your own philosophy, Stephanos, than I redefining anything in mine. As mentioned earlier, omniscience isn't confined to perfection anymore than omnivorous "all-devouring" is confined to eating the whole universe. Likewise, cause in no way is confined to only the most mechanistic things. If you believe something only goes so far, then so be it. But that doesn't mean such words, especially words as broad as omni- "all", science "knowledge" and cause "reason" are locked into a narrow stipulation of only how your own belief prefers to limit the words. [This message has been edited by Essorant (01-09-2009 02:27 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
The reason things seem fixed in a "past" and "future" to people is because the human mind is so presistent with memory or calculations. It takes "snapshots" then calls those "past" or "future". But out there in the present, nothing is fixed and frozen in that sense, left behind in a "past" nor already ahead in a "future", for everything, in truth the whole universe, is present, and present in change. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
quote: Your statement seems to be a “Presentism” view--three dimensional, which is Zero dimensionality: “just one event” and unsupportive of special relativity--four-dimensional objects that are suspended in time. whereas the “Block View” Eternalism--four dimensional view, supports special relativity. The past, present and future all exist. Then you have “The Growing Block View,” which supports the past and present but the future does not exist. Presently, my eyes are not what they used to be, so I’m already getting a headache, but there are definite alternatives to your view. Here’s a pdf link that might interest you: Alternative View |
||
|
Susan Caldwell Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348Florida |
I didn't read all the replies (they say I am ADHD...whatever)so forgive me if this has already been said.... No. Because if we were would we be questioning if we were?? "too bad ignorance isn't painful" |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Regina, Please, I am not interested in locking things into -isms. I don't believe that anything doesn't exist, (call it "God" "past" "future", "one dimension" or "a thousand dimensions" etc), otherwise I wouldn't say everything is present. My main point is that everything is present in change, not "frozen" into "pasts" and "futures" It is the whole universe, changing. Your eyes are indeed changing, and therefore your mind takes "snapshots" (pasts and presents), but they are not at all left behind or already ahead in such "pasts" and "futures" but are actually always present, changing. And when they are no longer eyes they shall still be present too, as something else, changing. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: Susan People question things they know about everyday. The question doesn't come from not knowing about everything in some way, but from not knowing about it in every way that it may be known about, which may be more direct or more indirect, more general or more specific, and therefore we question the way we know about something and how we deal with it and adjust our manner(s) of knowledge, how to refer to things, etc. If we didn't know about everything, we wouldn't know about it to refer to in the first place or know about it to have a question about either. The fact that we have a question about it in the first place, is because we know about it to have a question within the manners of knowledge, how we use it, and how our manners of knowledge "correspond" with the manners of what we are talking about. Knowing about something is a "prerequisite" to having a question about it. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Essorant, no offense taken. But I never said that omniscience (by definition) was confined to perfection. Perfection is perhaps a separate aspect of Christian dogma than God's omniscience. For example, Sue may be beautiful and intelligent, but beauty is not intrinsically and theoretically bound to intelligence. Still, regardless of one's Theology, and regardless of whether you think omniscience even possible, omniscience means to know everything, period. You are not merely tweaking the definition a bit or adding a nuance or two, but twisting it tortuously into almost the very opposite of what it has universally been understood to mean for centuries. If all you mean by omniscience is "partial but widely applicable knowledge", then yes we are omniscient. But we are not omniscient in the sense of knowing everything exhaustively in the universe. And if that's not what you mean, then will you invent a new word for it please, and quit telling everyone else they are narrow for believing the word has a definite meaning (regardless of the controversy over that meaning, or whether you believe it possible)? quote: So the prefix "omni" in the word omniscient isn't a measure of knowledge, isn't a modifier of the second half of the word, but is really the measure of how far a person can freely elasticize the definition of the word itself. .... rrright. If you're arguing for an alternate definition of the word, you should be able to cite at least a dictionary reference or two. Otherwise, what you have is a private permutation. Consensus (of some kind) is usually the rule in conversation Essorant. No one on this forum (thus far) concedes your ability to murder language like this, and I'll bet you'll be hard pressed to find anyone anywhere else who does either. Stephen |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Actually Ess, the article/link supports your view, which now seems more consistent with a Block view: an alternative to the "Common Sense," Presentist view, I believe. Your view reflects, Heraclitus "panta rhei, panta chorei" "Nothing is constant but change." But the thesis further examines the nature between change and time perspectives, as well as dimensionality. Though Heraclitus' writings were limited bits, it didn't rule him out, of course. I agree that isms tend to be trite, but they can also be simple labels attached to areas of scientific studies that help us formulate and develop our ideas more properly. It's good to see you're expanding your views away from that in these areas compared to your staunch formalism on poetry. Lol. Now, if only my eyes wouldn't get any worse, I'd be happy |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: I am glad you are coming to your senses Stephanos. If partial knowledge were not knowledge, then you would not know yourself, simply because you were not able to specify every speck and minute of change of your body and soul. Just like partial knowledge of yourself is still knowledge of yourself, partial knowledge of everything is still knowledge of everything, and knowledge of everything is omniscience! |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Regina, panta rhei, panta chorei = "all flows, all goes." quote: Thanks, I try to judge things by evidence and virtue and truth, rather than following any "ism". [This message has been edited by Essorant (01-11-2009 03:35 AM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Essorant, even if I had "partial knowledge of everything" (which I don't), it would differ from "complete knowledge of everything". The definition of omniscience is, and always has been, a comprehensive knowledge of everything ... or knowing everything about everything, if you will. Even in real life, knowing just a little bit about everything in a category does not constitute impressive knowledge. For example, I know a little about the human heart, as well as you do; But our knowledge pales when compared to that of a cardiologist, so much so that if we hung a shingle and began to practice cardiology without the proper education, we would be arrested by the police. Partial knowledge of even everything in a category (if that much were granted) would not amount to omniscience. quote: Yes we omniscient ones must do that from time to time. It's a disguise, so that no one knows we're omniscient. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, quote: Omniscience is made of the two words omni "all" and science "knowledge", not any stipulation of perfectly or imperfectly. Knowing all (completely/perfectly) and knowing all (incompletely/imperfectly) are both knowing all, just in different ways. The minute we are able to know anything, we know about the universe/existance (all) in one way or another, despite our lack of terms and our inablity to specify everything of that universe. We "swallow" a whole, like a whirlpool, regardless of how little time we have to turn everything up and down in our hands and mind and measure it bit by bit and be able to make specifications. But what we are not able to make specifications about is still "swallowed" with the rest in a knowledge of existance itself. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ess: quote: Ess, there's not even evidence that we know all imperfectly ... much less evidence that this is a valid understanding of "omniscient". I already asked to you cite me one or two people who use the word as you are using it. Until you take up that challenge, to me, you are entertaining a private permutation. Or allow me to put it in the form of a question ... Are we omniscient in the majority/consensus understanding of the word? No. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, quote: I think we are (part of) the evidence. But who or what is the evidence of anyone knowing all perfectly? quote: Why don't I count? I am a person too. quote: What is the difference between you using the word according to the majority's sense, and I using it according to my sense? The word is broad enough for both, for literally it doesn't specify or lock the word into either of our beliefs. When you use omniscient as "knowing all (perfectly)" you are using it with a connotation from your own belief just as much as I am using it with a connotation of my belief if I say "knowing all (imperfectly). But the difference on my side is that I am not trying to exclude your usage from being in the breadth of the word. I am not saying "knowing all (perfectly)" isn't still knowing all. All I am saying "knowing all (imperfectly) is knowing all too. Both are omniscience. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I just think its uncouth to hijack a word like that and radically change it. Of course you are somebody. Even a likeable somebody, in my opinion. But who are you to demand that everyone else follow suit? All I'm asking you to do is cite one or two people other than yourself, who have used the word in this way. It might legitimize your usage, and give me confidence that you haven't arbitrarily ripped a word from its context, and redefined it. Otherwise you might have done better by titling the thread "Do we have partial or imperfect knowledge of everything?" Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, That is not true. My use of the word omniscience is no different in principle from someone using the word "god" in a different context according to his/her own belief about the reality of "god". Using "god" in one's own context doesn't enforce that context on the word, nor does using "omniscience" in one's own context enforce the specific context onto that word, its general meaning, or on you, Stephanos. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
The difference is, Essorant, with any usage of "god" you could cite other examples of the same. And even then one could distinquish between metaphysical use, literal use, or metaphorical use. But can you cite even one example of someone else using omniscience to mean "partial knowledge about everything"? Stephen |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
In this instance, it doesn’t really matter, guys. "Partial knowledge of everything" is just as impossible for a human as full knowledge of everything. Half of infinity is still infinity. No matter how you want to mangle the meaning of the word, the answer is still going to be a resounding no. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, I don't understand your reasoning. Why do someone else's belief and context in which the word is used need to be the same as mine? By the way, I am not saying "partial knowledge of everything" is the definition of the word, but that "knowledge of everything" doesn't exclude "perfect knowledge of everything" or "imperfect knowledge of everything". I am defending the broadness of the word to be able to be used in both contexts, not trying to enforce a connotation of "imperfect knowledge of everything" on the definition. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
In order for us not to know anything about something, something we know about would need to exclude everything that something else has, and therefore that something else would then be "something we know nothing about". Where does that ever happen? What doesn't include anything that we already know about? But even if it were so, if we didn't know anything about something, then we would also know nothing about it to be able to prove we know nothing about it. If you are arguing that there is something we don't at least know something about, then nor do you know anything about it to prove it. Knowing we know nothing about it, would be knowing something about it, which would contradict not knowing anything about it. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Why are you using "we" as your preferred pronoun, Essorant? If I know anything about something you didn't even know existed, then even by your mangled definition, you can't be omniscient. There is no we. Carried to its logical next step, if any human (or other sentient being) knows something about which you are ignorant, again, it can be shown there is no omniscience, imperfect other otherwise. And finally, if there is anything about which all of humanity is ignorant, omniscience is clearly not achieved -- even if we can't "prove" it, i.e., even if we don't know we don't know. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: To show that I mean all of us. And it doesn't matter whether you take "we" individually, one at a time, or as if personified as one, for the same principle covers everyone individually or as a group, despite knowing more or less. For every degree of knowledge bears at least something that everything has, especially the most basic thing being existance. Everyone knows at least something about existance and in knowing something, knows something about everything, for existance is also part of everything, and the same principles in one thing are extended into every other thing through variation and change, which we always know at least something about the principles of all things and we would do so even if we were limited only to the smallest thing. If I am on one side of a wall all my life and am never on the other side, I always yet know something about the other side, for the other side always partially has what is on my side, it is also connected to my side, and therefore my side is already part of the other side, therefore knowing my part is already knowing part of the other side. All of this adds up too much knowledge for me to believe that we ever not know at least something about everything and in knowing everything to some extent are omniscient. quote: Everything anyone else knows about, which is a variable manner of partially knowing everything, inevitably includes at least something I (and you) already know even from the most basic thing as simply something about existance. We all know at least something about everything you know about. And likewise you know at least something about everything everyone else know about. Just as our knowledge of everything is partial, our ignorance of everything is partial as well. Neither get to be perfect. The same thing we partialy know about, we also partialy don't know about, but we always know at least something about everything. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Sisyphus Relay. Go Ron. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Essorant, to me, the word "mine" means exclusively Ron's. Why do you accuse me of saying that the context of the word needs to be the same as Ron's? quote: You mean in the same way the definition of "all" doesn't exclude "some", "a little bit", or "scant"? And yet I would be thought strange (at best) if I tried to conflate these definitions simply because the greater includes the lesser. Look, I was not stating that a word's usage for you needs to be dictated by who you're speaking to. As a matter of fact, if you're speaking, then you provide the context. My criticism is, frankly, bolder than that. I'm stating that if no one else uses the word in that way, or anything even close to that way, then you are more likely simply mistaken, than the herald of a nuanced definition. The challenge still stands. Can you cite me anyone in the history of writing who has used "omniscience" to mean partial knowledge (even of everything)? Stephen |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, If you wished an idiosyncratic definition of the terms of the discussion, it is customary to inform others first, and at the beginning. They may or may not wish to participate, depending on their understanding of the terms of the discussion at that point. The use of the word "Omniscient" was certainly the hook that brought in responses. Stephanos has a point. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: Stephanos, perhaps you should remember your own words about the "all" of omnipotence, from Grinch's thread: quote: If a line can be drawn for omnipotence, why can't a line be drawn for omniscience too? |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Bob, I don't think my definition of the word omniscient itself is idiosyncratic, for I literally mean "all" + "knowing" as most do. And I made that clear in the question itself when I said "know everything", the only difference is that I expressed an unfamiliar context "know everything, but just not perfectly" which was the whole point of philosophical consideration/debate. It had nothing to do with changing the definition, but arguing the context I brought forth. [This message has been edited by Essorant (01-16-2009 11:45 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Essorant: quote: But you didn't draw the line at absurdity, you drew the line at common knowledge of humanity. There's no one in the history of literature who uses the word "omniscient" to describe limited human knowledge. However, I can cite hundreds of uses of the word omnipotent, all of which take for granted that omnipotent doesn't mean something like the ability not to exist (an absurdity). My use of omnipotent (with modified definition or not, and whether you agree with the content or not) can still claim a kind of general consensus about the word. And finally, Ron is right about one thing. It doesn't matter. Even using your own description and forsaking the word "omniscient", I don't think you've established that we know something about everything ... not even imperfectly. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (01-17-2009 12:02 AM).] |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
quote: "Common" has nothing to do with my belief. The point is that I believe it is a knowledge of all, but not a knowledge of all in everyway that there may be a knowledge of all. For example, if somehow I never met any other human but myself, I would still know all humans, for all humans are what I am, just not in the same way. What I know about myself is also in other humans, just varied in shape and manner. Other humans don't exclude the same I may know about myself, they just vary it in their own "edition" of being a human too. This same principle is present from human to other things too, for human isn't just human, but a part of the universe, and therefore even if I were just limited to that part, through the same principle by which I know all humans in a limited way, I also know all parts of the universe in a limited way. No matter how limited knowledge is it still finds a way to know about everything, but indeed, in a much more limited way. The limitation is common in that it is limited by the human body for humans, but within that it is very variable and uncommon from one group to another, or one individual to another, for everyone changes it everyday by learning (or, alas, forgetting) more things about things he/she already knew in a more or less limited manner. quote: I agree with you. But I think I came much closer to proving a limited omniscience than you will ever come to proving an unlimited omniscience for anyone (including a "god"), in like wise as you failed to establish or even accept an unlimited omnipotence. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, quote: QED. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, good point. Essorant: quote: If all you're saying is that all knowledge has some degree of commonality (however small), I've never disagreed. But this is a mere truism since all knowledge is knowledge (despite the vast differences in content). It still presents me with you calling the most meager knowledge imaginable "omniscient" ... the very opposite of the consensus definition. And a definition not in the least practical since everyone is equalized on the procrustean bed of "knowing all". Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
No what I am saying is that everything is the content of everything, but in a different "copy" and "edition" of that content. Therefore, whatever "copy" we have, we still find the content of everything, but just varied in the different edition. Just like there are many different translations of Homer's Iliad, but every edition is still a translation of Homer's Iliad, likewise everything is a "translation" of everything, the whole universe, just translated differently in every given thing. The limitation is not that we don't know the "content", but that we are not able to "read" it through every possible "translation" that is available, for the "translations" are too many and our time in life far too short for that much reading. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
The analogy that would be closer (by implication) is to say that one letter of the alphabet contains Homer's Iliad. But that is wrong. One letter in the alphabet, in principle, comprises the alphabetic format that the Iliad is written in. But to know the letter "A" as a toddler is to know next to nothing about Homer's story. It is only a scant beginning, and a means to an end largely unknown ... and completely antithetical to the concept of omniscience. What pragmatic value is there then, in a theory that equates the most ignorant with the most knowledgable? It seems to me, this is simply another attempt to express philosophical monism / pantheism, not really saying much about epistemology. Anyway Ess, I guess we've reached an impasse in our discussion for now. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos, Your analogy isn't mine, Stephanos, and I agree that it doesn't work for the exact reason you expressed. Knowing everything limitedly in variable ways (as I am arguing) is not knowing about everything in one given way, as you are talking about knowing everything about Iliad. Your mind automatically expects Iliad to be known in only a particular way, as "Iliad", rather than knowing about everything that is in the Iliad but varied into different things, different things/events, etc that would include the same things, but wouldn't be anywhere exactly the same as "Iliad", nor even called "Iliad". For example, other things that involve all the same things, but varied in a different way and therefore known in a different way. The difference with my belief about the universe though is that I believe everything does still translate everything, but not always in the same way or as the same thing, and therefore not even under the same name. Instead of being known in one way it is variable and known through many different ways. You are as much a variable "copy" of it as I am. Everything embodies the whole universe, and therefore in whatever embodiment(s) we are limited, we still we know the whole universe, but through the limitation and perspective of the different embodiments that we are limited to. |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
Dear Essorant, My reading of the OED suggests that "omniscient" is a word applicable to humans only hyperbolically. Other uses seem reserved for the literal all-knowingness of God, should you go for that sort of thing. The OED gives one example from Boswell of an "omniscient" mountain which I thought was quite striking and lovely. Overall, however, Essorant needs to find another word for his concept. "Omniscient" appears already to be well spoken for. From what I remember of Anthony Burgess's attempt to get "dystopian" into the OED, he had to be able to list a hundred examples of its use in print before the word crossed the finish line. Is this true? I couldn't say; but the principle sounds about right. A few published examples of your usage would be a great help. Otherwise, it appears you are using a mere neologism disguised as a good English word. The point of this is unclear to me. You could be using "xorp" as well. Actually, it would be an improvement, because no confusion would apply. "Limited omniscience," as a concept, may have its place; but it strikes me more as an oxymoron than as a flash of illumination. Sincerely, Bob Kaven |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Bob, I like the word "blark". I find that I can stuff it with any meaning I wish. Stephen |
||
|
Earl Robertson Senior Member
since 2008-01-21
Posts 753BC, Canada |
How's this? Grinch, we have free will but we're predictable. God has free will but he has allready chosen what he is going to do, and therefore being able to predict our actions, he can control circumstance. Voe la Omniscience, with Omnipotence, and freedom of choice. (He could change his mind, but he's had a LONG time to think about this) My melancholy is purely my own |
||
|
Bob K Member Elite
since 2007-11-03
Posts 4208 |
"Blark" is good. Also "Dwight." |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
