Free will and omniscience

[Belz...]

"The OB's knowledge is atemporal, not chronological

Care to explain what that word salad means, anyway ?

1) Now you say omniscience is a logical impossibility. Well, decide on an argument, is it a logical impossibility or is it impossible within the laws of causality (which you made reference to but never specified).

Both. Omniscience is physically impossible because it violates the uncertainty principle. It's also logically impossible because it causes an infinite loop, as the OB must be aware that it's aware that it's aware ad infinitum in order to be omniscient. Thirdly, by your own invented definition of the word, it violates causality because you're somehow assuming that the action that it knows will happen somehow causes it to know it will happen even though it hasn't happened yet.

2) You say that omniscience violates all known laws of causality so it's hard to take it seriously and then you imply that a thing doesn't need to be real to be taken seriously.

Indeed. Those two things are not logically contradictory but considering your posting history it's no wonder it confuses you. Something can be unreal and taken seriously, so long as it's not ◊◊◊◊◊◊* crazy !

A choice can be known out of its time by an OB. *
The OB's knowledge is not necessarily chronological, *

That second sentence is an assertion by you. You are yet to demonstrate how this is possible even in principle, under any set of physical laws.

Do you have an argument other than "omniscience is not really possible"?

Yes. The scenario you describe makes no sense.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You would have to present analysis that causality, other than physical causality, implies a temporal sequence.

I would refer you to the definition of causality^WP.

You are invoking causality and/or temporality as characteristics of omniscience. Both would be restrictive extensions of the definition of omniscience. Not allowed.

Then neither is your argument based on the premise that the decision is the cause of the knowledge, which equally is a restrictive extension of the definition of omniscience.

If you are saying that my argument is invalid because there are not the proper words to state it, then you'll just have to find an interpreter.

No, if you want me to accept your argument, then I think the burden is on you to state it coherently. At the moment you haven't done so, because the basis of your argument is that the knowledge of the choice can both precede the choice and by caused by it, which violates any rational definition of causality.

Dave

 

[SumDood]

"The OB's knowledge is atemporal, not chronological, The definition of omniscience does not restrict otherwise."

Can you explain exactly how knowledge can be chronological? Humans (and I suppose the universe itself) exist in time and therefore are chronological. But I have knowledge of the past, present and future and that knowledge doesn't really depend on time.

From a few pages back:

Omniscience is defined as knowing everything. So, if the OB exists at any time, say even today, it knows everything, not just things from the past or future, but from all time. Therefore, the knowledge that the OB has is not constrained by time, and therefore, the knowledge is accurately described as atemporal.

Nobody is positing that omniscience is possible.

Is my knowledge of the past, present and future constrained by time? If not, can I say my knowledge is atemporal and therefore I am atemporal?

I never did get a response. I don't have a 'gotcha' answer or anything, I would just like some clarification on your position. I actually agree with you for once (makes me feel dirty, and not in a good way). An Omniscience Being would really be so far beyond our comprehension that logic and physics just break down. Humans can't even focus on two things at one point in time, let alone all things at all times. Makes my head hurt a little when I think about it.

I think Dr. Manhattan said it best:

There is no future. There is no past. Do you see? Time is simultaneous, an intricately structured jewel that humans insist on viewing one edge at a time, when the whole design is visible in every facet.

Let me try one:
I'm watching a monitor with a feed from a security camera mounted on my front porch. I have knowledge of whats going on on my porch right now. I also watched the camera yesterday and I will again tomorrow. Now, imagine if I experienced all three of these events at the same time. Right now (or yesterday or tomorrow), as I watch the monitor(s), I am aware of the events on my porch on those three days. It all happens at the same time for me. Me watching those monitors does not affect the activities on the porch.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Which doesn't work unless you define the chooser, the being applying the alleged free will, as atemporal, too. Of course you already knew that, your feigned steadfast willful ignorance notwithstanding.
ETA: Okay, maybe it's not feigned.

Of course when you make such an assertion without any reasoning behind then there is no reason to bother with it.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Care to explain what that word salad means, anyway ?

Been there, did that.

Both. Omniscience is physically impossible because it violates the uncertainty principle.

So you don't want to debate omniscience because it violates physical laws--lol.
Your new argument here is the uncertainty principle--roflmao.

It's also logically impossible because it causes an infinite loop, as the OB must be aware that it's aware that it's aware ad infinitum in order to be omniscient.

Your new argument here is to redefine omniscience.

Thirdly, by your own invented definition of the word, it violates causality because you're somehow assuming that the action that it knows will happen somehow causes it to know it will happen even though it hasn't happened yet.

Your new argument here is that omniscience violates some newly invented omniscient causality.
This is also filed under the redefinition of omniscience.

Indeed. Those two things are not logically contradictory but considering your posting history it's no wonder it confuses you. Something can be unreal and taken seriously, so long as it's not ◊◊◊◊◊◊* crazy !

That second sentence is an assertion by you. You are yet to demonstrate how this is possible even in principle, under any set of physical laws.

Your rebuttal is that omniscience violates physical laws--once again lol.

Yes. The scenario you describe makes no sense.

And yet another new argument--omniscience makes no sense.

Every time I restate my argument to make it simpler to understand you go to more extremes to avoid debating it directly.
You are certainly getting desperate.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

I would refer you to the definition of causality^WP.

"Causality (also referred to as causation[1]) is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first."

Then neither is your argument based on the premise that the decision is the cause of the knowledge, which equally is a restrictive extension of the definition of omniscience.

I have referred to the choice as the source of the knowledge. I have not claimed that the choice causes knowledge.
However, there is no doubt that there is a relationship between the choice and the OB's knowledge of the choice, in accordance with the definition of causality that you have provided.

No, if you want me to accept your argument, then I think the burden is on you to state it coherently. At the moment you haven't done so, because the basis of your argument is that the knowledge of the choice can both precede the choice and by caused by it, which violates any rational definition of causality.
Dave

But it doesn't violate the definition you provided, which is simply to say that there is relationship, where one thing is the consequence of another.

 

[GeeMack]

I have referred to the choice as the source of the knowledge. I have not claimed that the choice causes knowledge.
However, there is no doubt that there is a relationship between the choice and the OB's knowledge of the choice, in accordance with the definition of causality that you have provided.

From that definition...

"Causality (also referred to as causation[1]) is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first."​

... we notice it involves an event and a second event, which definitively indicates chronology, which puts you right back at requiring your atemporal omniscient being to be temporal. Looks like you just can't make it work without lying.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Can you explain exactly how knowledge can be chronological? Humans (and I suppose the universe itself) exist in time and therefore are chronological. But I have knowledge of the past, present and future and that knowledge doesn't really depend on time.
From a few pages back:
I never did get a response. I don't have a 'gotcha' answer or anything, I would just like some clarification on your position. I actually agree with you for once (makes me feel dirty, and not in a good way). An Omniscience Being would really be so far beyond our comprehension that logic and physics just break down. Humans can't even focus on two things at one point in time, let alone all things at all times. Makes my head hurt a little when I think about it.
I think Dr. Manhattan said it best:
Let me try one:
I'm watching a monitor with a feed from a security camera mounted on my front porch. I have knowledge of whats going on on my porch right now. I also watched the camera yesterday and I will again tomorrow. Now, imagine if I experienced all three of these events at the same time. Right now (or yesterday or tomorrow), as I watch the monitor(s), I am aware of the events on my porch on those three days. It all happens at the same time for me. Me watching those monitors does not affect the activities on the porch.

Humans acquire knowledge sequentially through time.
Yesterday you learned some stuff.
Today you learned, are learning, and will learn more stuff.
Tomorrow you will learn more stuff.
Independent of any time reference, the OB has all knowledge all at once.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

From that definition...

"Causality (also referred to as causation[1]) is the relationship between an event (the cause) and a second event (the effect), where the second event is understood as a consequence of the first."​

... we notice it involves an event and a second event, which definitively indicates chronology, which puts you right back at requiring your atemporal omniscient being to be temporal. Looks like you just can't make it work without lying.

Assuming that the point you are trying to demonstrate is true is called begging the question.
It is a fundamental fallacy in logic and debate.

The definition made no reference to time, you added that to support your argument.
You assumed time is the only kind of relationship that can exist in causation to support your argument on time and causation.

You made an elementary logical error.

 

[SumDood]

Humans acquire knowledge sequentially through time.
Yesterday you learned some stuff.
Today you learned, are learning, and will learn more stuff.
Tomorrow you will learn more stuff.
Independent of any time reference, the OB has all knowledge all at once.

Sorry to nit-pick, but we haven't be talking about the 'acquisition' of knowledge, just knowledge itself. We don't know or care how the Omniscience Being learned what it knows. Is the knowledge I have at this exact moment atemporal? All my knowledge is independent of any time reference, is it not? I acquired it sequentially, but the knowledge itself is not chronological.

 

[GeeMack]

Assuming that the point you are trying to demonstrate is true is called begging the question.
It is a fundamental fallacy in logic and debate.

The definition made no reference to time, you added that to support your argument.
You assumed time is the only kind of relationship that can exist in causation to support your argument on time and causation.

The definition made a reference to an event and a second event. To sane, even moderately intelligent English speaking people that indicates a chronological sequence, a reference to time.

You made an elementary logical error.

Your inability to support your point without lying is again noted. I tried to give you a way to turn your failure into success by redefining the chooser to be atemporal. And although you've tried that dishonest tactic, you haven't been willing to state it outright. But I'll offer another possibility since you clearly can't communicate your thoughts on this matter in a way that anyone else finds understandable, much less cogent....

How about you claim the characteristics of your omniscient being are so abstract that you can make free will and omniscience compatible in the far reaches of your imagination, but the stuff happening in your imagination is so bizarre that there is simply no way to communicate it to other people. That way omniscience and free will are compatible to you. By admitting your failure to get anyone else to understand what the hell you're trying to say, you don't have to keep flailing around with the dishonest assertions.

 

[Belz...]

So you don't want to debate omniscience because it violates physical laws--lol.

Where did I say I don't want to debate omniscience ? Just because I say your redefining of the word makes no sense doesn't mean I don't want to talk about it. In fact, I AM talking about it.

Your new argument here is the uncertainty principle--roflmao.

It's certainly better than not having an argument and just answering things like "roflmao", which are better suited to teenagers.

Your new argument here is to redefine omniscience.

Unless knowledge is not a thing, the OB must know it.

Your new argument here is that omniscience violates some newly invented omniscient causality.

It's not a "new" argument if I've been making it for a while. But just go on, please. Handwave definitions, physics, logic and everything else away. It's much easier to maintain a frantasy that way.

This is also filed under the redefinition of omniscience.

Your rebuttal is that omniscience violates physical laws--once again lol.

It certainly helps to determine a lot of things about it when it's physically impossible, but I know you care little about reality.

And yet another new argument--omniscience makes no sense.

NO ! NOT omniscience. YOUR ARGUMENT makes no sense. Please learn to read.

Every time I restate my argument to make it simpler to understand you go to more extremes to avoid debating it directly.

You don't have an argument. You've simply made up a nonsensical definition of omniscience.

If you don't even address other people's posts, what does it say about how well your points hold up ?

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Sorry to nit-pick, but we haven't be talking about the 'acquisition' of knowledge, just knowledge itself. We don't know or care how the Omniscience Being learned what it knows. Is the knowledge I have at this exact moment atemporal? All my knowledge is independent of any time reference, is it not? I acquired it sequentially, but the knowledge itself is not chronological.

What the atemporal description of knowledge refers to is that the OB has knowledge at a time that a non-omniscient being would not have it. An OB has knowledge of an event before the event has occurred; out of normal chronological order.

 

[Dave Rogers]

What the atemporal description of knowledge refers to is that the OB has knowledge at a time that a non-omniscient being would not have it. An OB has knowledge of an event before the event has occurred; out of normal chronological order.

"Before" is a strange word to use to describe atemporality.

Dave

 

[Belz...]

What the atemporal description of knowledge refers to is that the OB has knowledge at a time that a non-omniscient being would not have it. An OB has knowledge of an event before the event has occurred; out of normal chronological order.

Let's forget your attempts at dodging the issues raised by your scenario, now.

Please explain how it is different from the 'classical' definition of omniscience. In other words, how does it allow the chooser to pick another choice, without making the OB non-omniscient ? So far you claim to have explained it but it is clearly unsatisfactory to all but you.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

The definition made a reference to an event and a second event. To sane, even moderately intelligent English speaking people that indicates a chronological sequence, a reference to time.

By sane you mean anyone who would support your interpretation and argument. That doesn't work.

Your inability to support your point without lying is again noted. I tried to give you a way to turn your failure into success by redefining the chooser to be atemporal. And although you've tried that dishonest tactic, you haven't been willing to state it outright. But I'll offer another possibility since you clearly can't communicate your thoughts on this matter in a way that anyone else finds understandable, much less cogent....

How about you claim the characteristics of your omniscient being are so abstract that you can make free will and omniscience compatible in the far reaches of your imagination, but the stuff happening in your imagination is so bizarre that there is simply no way to communicate it to other people. That way omniscience and free will are compatible to you. By admitting your failure to get anyone else to understand what the hell you're trying to say, you don't have to keep flailing around with the dishonest assertions.

It's interesting that you find nothing incomprehensible about debating omniscience, but when the debate enters the realm of "maybe the OB has knowledge of an action as a result of the action" your intellect has no way to evaluate that; as you point out with your own description: "far reaches of imagination", "bizarre", and "simply no way to communicate it".

I find the idea that I have been supporting quite easy to understand:
I have knowledge of things as a result of those things, in chronological order.
Maybe the OB is similar, but since the OB doesn't have to know things in chronological order, maybe it can know things as a result of those things, out of chronological order.
Wow, that's a simple concept; nothing bizarre about it.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Where did I say I don't want to debate omniscience ? Just because I say your redefining of the word makes no sense doesn't mean I don't want to talk about it. In fact, I AM talking about it.
It's certainly better than not having an argument and just answering things like "roflmao", which are better suited to teenagers.
Unless knowledge is not a thing, the OB must know it.
It's not a "new" argument if I've been making it for a while. But just go on, please. Handwave definitions, physics, logic and everything else away. It's much easier to maintain a frantasy that way.

It certainly helps to determine a lot of things about it when it's physically impossible, but I know you care little about reality.
NO ! NOT omniscience. YOUR ARGUMENT makes no sense. Please learn to read.
You don't have an argument. You've simply made up a nonsensical definition of omniscience.
If you don't even address other people's posts, what does it say about how well your points hold up ?

So, basically you want to us some new arguments or say that I made up a definition of omniscience.
Let's forget the new arguments (There not worth addressing anyway).
Let's forget your argument that omniscience is physically impossible (which of course you need to ignore to discuss omniscience in the first place).
Let's go straight to it (again).
What is your definition of omniscience?
Mine, as always, is all-knowing, without any additional restrictions on it.

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

"Before" is a strange word to use to describe atemporality.
Dave

Yes, that issue has been discussed and resolved many times.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Yes, that issue has been discussed and resolved many times.

Interesting use of the word "resolved". It doesn't mean the same as "asserted".

Dave

 

[Bill Thompson 75]

Let's forget your attempts at dodging the issues raised by your scenario, now.

Please explain how it is different from the 'classical' definition of omniscience.

I have found no "classical " definition that differs from mine. Could you point one out to me (I am assuming you don't consider your peronal definition to be the only classical one.)

In other words, how does it allow the chooser to pick another choice, without making the OB non-omniscient ? So far you claim to have explained it but it is clearly unsatisfactory to all but you.

The OB can only know what the chooser chooses.