First comment: Mondays suck, and Tuesdays aren't much better. I've been too bloody busy to keep up with this thread.
Second comment: This is an amazing conversation. Bravo!
Quote:
|
I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of things that would seem possible now that might be in the future; I just don't agree with your assertion that anything is possible, by an individual, regardless of situation (even lacking arms etc). What if "the way" for the BIAV to 'unlock the telekinetic potential of its mind' involved use of a tinfoil hat. The BIAV could sit quite happily knowing it could have telekinesis, except for the lack of hat. (or insert more palatable example, you can see where I'm going)
|
I would say that BIAV simply uses amazingly persuasive discourse learned via omniscience to convince its' Nazi servitors to install said beanie =) Again, I said that omniscience implies omnipotence, but that it does not guarantee instant gratification. That brain is gonna have to sweat! Well, perhaps its' lackeys will sweat for it.
Yes, I'm joking =)
Quote:
|
All I am saying is that knowing that something is impossible is a form of knowledge. You said earlier that the BIAV must 'know how to do X' because 'Otherwise that would be something it wouldn't know - making it not omniscient' - but what if it simply knows that it can't be done.
|
Again, omniscience is ALL knowledge. To me, this means that one would know the path/actions to get whatever desired result one wishes to accomplish, even given limited capacity. It is, simply put, another level of existence from ours.
Quote:
|
I agree that we can be limited, and that things we currently consider impossible might one day be realised to be so - but you seem to be making the very strong claim that not only is nothing impossible, but that everything is possible for everyone.
|
Given sufficient knowledge and work, anything is possible. I said it, I mean it. There is a quietly implied caveat in that statement, however. It lies in the word "sufficient". Omniscience implies sufficient knowledge as it is all knowledge. I allow that it is possible that a being may be unwilling to take the steps necessary to utilize perfect knowledge. I am still of the opinion that omniscience is not truly omniscience if it is not the all knowledge, including how to surpass one's own limitations.
Quote:
|
Alternatively, it could be that you have found a flaw with the concept of omniscience:
|
As I tend to dislike absolutes, seeing this makes me happy.
Quote:
assumption 1 - 'x is omniscient' means that for all actions A, x knows how to do A (aka Moonduck's assumption )
assumption 2a - there exists at least one action, B, and one person, y, such that is impossible for y to do B (aka cliche's weak assumption)
- or -
assumption 2b - there exists at least one action, B, such that for all persons y, it is impossible for y to do B (cliche's strong assumption)
|
Nice structure. I like it so far!
Quote:
(I like this bit because we get to use our ideas together rather than arguing as we have been doing ):
Combining 1 + 2a : it is impossible for y to be omniscient; for if we claim he knows everything we fall into the trap you mentioned earlier: 'Otherwise that would be something it wouldn't know - making it not omniscient'
Combining 1 + 2b (my favourite) : omniscience is impossible
What do you think?
|
I think you've got something. As I said previously, any discussion on such things as omniscience strays into Ludicrous Territory as readily as a discussion that includes a BIAV. If we show that omniscience is logically impossible, which I accept, I think we reach a conclusion we are both satisfied with
Good show!