Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Philosophy


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-21-2005, 10:25 PM   #1 (permalink)
Upright
 
Location: Sacramento
omniscience continued.....

i am sorry, but i feel that the thread on free will has been jacked (in no small part due to my actions) and replaced by a debate on omniscience and its impact on our freedom to choose. as such, i am moving my comments on the matter solely to this thread in an attempt to give jumpinjesus his thread back.

however, in the spirit of expanding the scope of discussion, i have some ideas to put forth (most of them not my own )

firstoff, some basics.

Quote:
Omniscience is the capacity to know everything, or at least everything that can be known about a character/s including thoughts, feelings, etc. In monotheism, this ability is typically attributed to a god. It is typically contrasted with omnipotence. Omniscience is sometimes understood to also imply the capacity to know everything that will be.

Foreknowledge and its compatibility with free will has been a debated topic between theists and philosophers. The argument that divine foreknowledge is not compatible with free will is known as theological fatalism. If man is truly free to choose between different alternatives, it is very difficult to understand how God could know in advance which way he will choose. Various responses have been proposed (under the assumption that God exists, and is omniscient):

* God can know in advance what I will do, because free will is to be understood only as freedom from coercion, and anything further is an illusion.
* God can know in advance what I will do, even though free will in the fullest sense of the phrase does exist. God somehow has a "middle knowledge" - that is, knowledge of how free agents will act in any given circumstances.
* It is not possible for a god to know the result of a free human choice. Omniscience should therefore be interpreted to mean "knowledge of everything that can be known". God can know what someone will do, but only by predetermining it; thus, he chooses the extent of human freedom by choosing what (if anything) to know in this way.
* God stands outside time, and therefore can know everything free agents do, since he does not know these facts "in advance".
full text at Wikipedia

obviously, this is not a full and conclusive list of omniscience or the responses to it. i chose wikipedia because it is community moderated, so it reflects what people actually think about something, rather than only what webster decides to say.


for a damned interesting (albeit fairly involved) treatise on omniscience and it's effects on us, please see Omniscience
this article is too long and complex to quote or explain without actually reading it, but to summarize some points:

if omniscience exists, it necessitates that the omniscience is in fact the subject rather than the object. in other words, the being is not omniscient, rather the omniscience exists.

omniscience, being ever constant (never changing) is everlasting. basically, omniscience knows everything, and never forgets anything, so it will always be here, unless it is not truly omniscient.


anyway, he goes on to explain how omniscience necessitates the greatest love possible, and explains why we are what we are.

interesting read, and i hope i still get some responses to this thread
__________________
Food for thought.
pennywise121 is offline  
Old 08-22-2005, 05:33 AM   #2 (permalink)
Mad Philosopher
 
asaris's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, DC
I'm going to just respond briefly, because I'm running a bit late for school. Read this thread -- the wiki you posted was a bit misleading about middle knowledge; in any case, given the way I approach the problem, not having free will in the fullest sense doesn't matter. I've found that people who think that we need free will "in the fullest sense" often have trouble distinguishing free will from randomness.

Regarding knowledge, when I say JTB is the generally accepted definition of knowledge, I mean that I've never meant or heard of an analytic philosopher who disagreed with that definition. The problem you raise of a lack of second-order knowledge doesn't matter here, since it's clear we sometimes have knowledge, and we've just been stipulating as to knowledge cases. The problem of the subjective nature of justification, connected to the problem of our lack of second order knowledge isn't problematic here, since we're talking about objective justification. Finally, and I apologize for not being clear about this, but what I meant by definition was merely that JTB is a necessary condition of something's being knowledge, not a sufficient condition.
__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche
asaris is offline  
Old 08-22-2005, 07:04 PM   #3 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: North of the 50th Parallel
HI, Great thread...

Omniscience is somewhat paradoxical, in my opinion. If A being (we can say God for arguments sake) knows everything, it has "omniscience", and that implies foreknowledge and a perfect understanding of all that I have done and will do. I cannot therefore make any decisions that were not seen by "god" before they happen.

In order for a being to be omniscient I beleive that one of two scenarios would have to take place, I am open to More if you can think them up.

Scenario 1 - God is omniscient and therefore MUST also be omnipresent. I do not beleive you can have one without the other and here is why:

To have the attribute of Omniscience God would have seen the entire "tape" of my life. God would therefore have to control me or else face infinitley differing world every time I actually make a choice that differs.. either God would also have to be omnipresent in order to be able to manage the change from any one action that God or I may undertake or God would have to be Omnipresent in order to control me. If I am aware of God's Omniscience it becomes EVEN MORE imperative that God be Omnipotent. The reason for this is that I may now choose another course in life just to complicate things further. SO... for god to be truly omniscient she would have to have Complete control of me and all circumstances around me. I hope my writing lives up to the logic I am trying to portray here.

Scenario 2 - If God is omniscient only you CAN have a degree of control !

Imagine playing "chicken" with God... You are driving your Ford towards God's on the highway of life. The first one to veer away Loses! Since I know that God knows what I am about to do... I do nothing. I drive straight ahead and wait for God to lose by veering out of the way since she knew what I was going to do. Imagine that I just won a game of logic over an omniscient being!

Again, if God is truly Omniscient, then omnipresence would have to be another attribute.
__________________
Living on the edge of sanity
RCAlyra2004 is offline  
Old 08-23-2005, 08:25 AM   #4 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by RCAlyra2004
Omniscience is somewhat paradoxical, in my opinion. If A being (we can say God for arguments sake) knows everything, it has "omniscience", and that implies foreknowledge and a perfect understanding of all that I have done and will do. I cannot therefore make any decisions that were not seen by "god" before they happen.
I agree. Omniscience, by definition, does not exclude future knowledge or potential knowledge of the future. An Omniscient being knows everything that was, is, and possibly could be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RCAlyra2004
Scenario 1 - God is omniscient and therefore MUST also be omnipresent. I do not beleive you can have one without the other and here is why:

To have the attribute of Omniscience God would have seen the entire "tape" of my life. God would therefore have to control me or else face infinitley differing world every time I actually make a choice that differs.. either God would also have to be omnipresent in order to be able to manage the change from any one action that God or I may undertake or God would have to be Omnipresent in order to control me. If I am aware of God's Omniscience it becomes EVEN MORE imperative that God be Omnipotent. The reason for this is that I may now choose another course in life just to complicate things further. SO... for god to be truly omniscient she would have to have Complete control of me and all circumstances around me. I hope my writing lives up to the logic I am trying to portray here.
Your logic is okay, but you're making several suppositions that fail to hold water. Even if there was an omniscient being, it does not follow that that being wishes to have an active hand in what they observe. You're pre-supposing that an omniscient being is constantly and actively trying to instill order to lessen the amount of chaos the being would have to observe. But an omniscient being would be able to observe chaos or order with equal ease.
Unright is offline  
Old 08-27-2005, 03:18 AM   #5 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Australia
Sorry for my newbishness, but I reckon that an omnisent (or whatever the adjective is) person would know the future possibilities.

Meaning he/she/it would have knowledge of the possible futures and what chances are of that happening, therefore making them omninescent but at the same time allowing free will.
__________________
A.minor.fall.then.a.major.lift
ChistledStone is offline  
Old 08-27-2005, 08:21 AM   #6 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: North of the 50th Parallel
Unright, I beleive you are correct.

I have a hard time with the entire concept of omniscience, since I beleive it only to be a concept. That is to say that it is impossible for a being to be omniscient because she/he/it would have to be larger than AND outside AND inside of our universe all at the same time. In other words there would be too much information for this being to digest all at once. If there was such a being it certainly would not be a "personal" god because of it's immensity. It is for that reason that I have failed in my conceptualization of omniscience.

Hence, the logic of such a circumstance evades me to a degree. But if I try long and hard I am certain I can squeeze out some logic that would make everyone groan. (HA HA)

Thanks for you great feedback!

RCA
__________________
Living on the edge of sanity

Last edited by RCAlyra2004; 08-27-2005 at 08:25 AM..
RCAlyra2004 is offline  
Old 09-03-2005, 01:04 PM   #7 (permalink)
lost and found
 
Johnny Rotten's Avatar
 
Location: Berkeley
I veer towards the "strictly necessary" model of existence. If something is not strictly necessary for the system to sustain itself, then it can removed from the equation. I do not think our system requires an omniscient being to maintain it. I think it is, to a certain and significant degree, self-sustaining. For example, although humans are historically brutal and avaricious, there still an underlying, subconscious understanding that some things can simply not be done if we are to preserve what we have. Mutually assured destruction is what allowed us to avert nuclear devastation for the past fifty years or so. However, this doesn't necessarily prevent us from developing a technology with more destructive potential than we're aware of.

So the population of our system is primarily interested in maintaining itself, thus making an arch-being unneccesary. Now, you may look at our widespread pollution and warfare and disagree with me, but these elements have more to do with ignorance and outright apathy towards long-term effects. If our self-sustaining extinct fails, it is because our species has failed. Furthermore -- and Judeo-Christians will probably find this notion distasteful -- our continued presence on this Earth or any other planet is not necessary. There is no indication that an arch-being would require our presence, our safety, or our worship in its overall plan. Earth is but a speck on a grain of sand on a beach so large that its parameters can not be entirely determined. On the other side of the coin, there is no indication that our destruction is necessary.

Although I am spiritual, I am confident that it is up to us, and not "God's grace," to survive and make something meaningful of ourselves. If we have any mission at all, I think it is to become graceful ourselves. And that grace may come in the form of complete sacrifice, which I believe is the highest form of honor.

So that's a long way of saying that defining omniscience is, in my opinion, a misleading endeavor.
__________________
"The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine
Johnny Rotten is offline  
Old 09-04-2005, 11:46 AM   #8 (permalink)
Mad Philosopher
 
asaris's Avatar
 
Location: Washington, DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten, emphasis mine
Furthermore -- and Judeo-Christians will probably find this notion distasteful -- our continued presence on this Earth or any other planet is not necessary. There is no indication that an arch-being would require our presence
Nah. Christians have traditionally believed that God freely chose to create us -- nothing compelled him to do so. So far from finding this distasteful, most of us would agree.
__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."

"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."

-- Friedrich Nietzsche
asaris is offline  
Old 09-20-2005, 10:06 AM   #9 (permalink)
<3 TFP
 
xepherys's Avatar
 
Location: 17TLH2445607250
Even if omniscience exists, it can only exist within the framework of the being in question. In eternal infinity, there is likely a framework outside of that being, and outside of its omniscience. Therefore, omniscience is in the mind of the beholder.
xepherys is offline  
Old 09-20-2005, 10:29 AM   #10 (permalink)
pig
pigglet pigglet
 
pig's Avatar
 
Location: Locash
I believe reality itself can be conceived as being an omniscient quantity, of which we are a part by default. Anything short of this I conceive to be primarily academic.
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
pig is offline  
Old 09-20-2005, 12:08 PM   #11 (permalink)
<3 TFP
 
xepherys's Avatar
 
Location: 17TLH2445607250
Hence 'Tilted Academics'. Philosophy is academic as a whole. That's part of its charm.
xepherys is offline  
Old 09-20-2005, 12:21 PM   #12 (permalink)
pig
pigglet pigglet
 
pig's Avatar
 
Location: Locash
Quote:
Originally Posted by xepherys
Hence 'Tilted Academics'. Philosophy is academic as a whole. That's part of its charm.
I meant as opposed to practical. Do you believe philosophy has a practical application, or is only useful for mind games?
__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style
pig is offline  
Old 09-20-2005, 12:33 PM   #13 (permalink)
zen_tom
Guest
 
Just a pipe in to say that just because something exists as a concept doesn't mean it has any basis for reality in the real world. I'd place conscious omniscience under this category, right next to superman, the chemical transmutation of lead into gold, pixies, goblins, fairies and free money.

In a strange way, unconscious omniscience could be argued for. As the universe goes through its life, churning space, matter and time up within itself as it goes, everything inside it, every action, reaction, force and existance is being 'memorised' by the universe in the same way a computer chip can memorise all the 1s and 0s fired into each of its memory addresses. From the outside of time and space, perhaps this universe could be unreeled, its events examined, studied and considered by extra-universal minds the same way our scientists smash apart the tinyest of atoms to try and work out what makes them tick.
 
 

Tags
continued, omniscience

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:18 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360