The so-called omnimax attributes

[James_S_Saint]

At most your version of the thought experiment can show that OG can “foresee” my actions for the very predictable period of the discovery phase. And that is not convincing. As soon as the cards are on the table, and I know what the prediction is all about, I am free to act contrary to the prediction, thereby invalidating it. That is what my argument says.

But then foreseeing that you will do that, OG is also free to act accordingly and makes his statement to you with that in mind, thereby causing his prediction to become true by you attempting to be contrary. I have actually done this. It works.

 

[Spock]

But then foreseeing that you will do that, OG is also free to act accordingly and makes his statement to you with that in mind, thereby causing his prediction to become true by you attempting to be contrary. I have actually done this. It works.

We went through this before. OG only knows the future - according to you. Once I understand what the prediciton says, I am in control. The process of who-can-outwit-whom ends at that point. And having free will I can do whatever I please, I can conform with the prediction, or act against it.

 

[James_S_Saint]

We went through this before. OG only knows the future - according to you. Once I understand what the prediciton says, I am in control. The process of who-can-outwit-whom ends at that point. And having free will I can do whatever I please, I can conform with the prediction, or act against it.

That is an erroneous presumption on your part. Let me explain one real example;

Many years ago, I was in my living room with 2 women. One had implied that she was going to say “no” to something I had suggested. I don’t remember what it was, but the other woman stated, “Be careful, don’t ever say ‘no’ to him. He can make you do anything.”

Of course that immediately became the challenge. I tried to explain at first that indeed, I could cause her to obey me in ways that she couldn’t image and tried to explain how. But then as an example, I told her that I could get her to take off that sweater she was wearing. As she had almost nothing under it, she proclaimed that I most certainly could not.

I had intentionally chosen something of a nature that would be difficult for her to do just to make the point. The other woman being there was further incentive for her to not take off her sweater.

So after she had made her proclamation that there was no way short of physical violence, I could get her to take off her sweater, I proceeded, “You will indeed take off that sweater.”

With us each sitting from 3 to 6 feet apart, with no threads whatsoever nor any bribes of any sort, I spoke for about 15 seconds.

She removed and handed me her sweater.

Your will has limits. Those who can see deeply enough into you and your circumstances can by mere voice cause you to do almost anything.

This is what the topics of advertising, mass programming, hypnosis, psychology, and such are all about. Don’t fool yourself. You make it harder on everyone else when you do.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I might add that both women were staunch feminists who proudly detested the very idea of ever obeying a man.

Your pride, anger, hatred, or abstinence is merely another tool to add into the equation that can act as much against you as for you, depending on who you are trying to resist.

As Jesus said, “Do not resist an evil person[man].” What he did not tell you was that by resisting evil, you will be drawn into being that evil and even unwillingly defeating yourself.

If that same woman had thought and said, “Yeah, you probably can”, I most probably wouldn’t have.

 

[Spock]

That is an erroneous presumption on your part. Let me explain one real example;

Many years ago, I was in my living room with 2 women. One had implied that she was going to say “no” to something I had suggested. I don’t remember what it was, but the other woman stated, “Be careful, don’t ever say ‘no’ to him. He can make you do anything.”

Of course that immediately became the challenge. I tried to explain at first that indeed, I could cause her to obey me in ways that she couldn’t image and tried to explain how. But then as an example, I told her that I could get her to take off that sweater she was wearing. As she had almost nothing under it, she proclaimed that I most certainly could not.

I had intentionally chosen something of a nature that would be difficult for her to do just to make the point. The other woman being there was further incentive for her to not take off her sweater.

So after she had made her proclamation that there was no way short of physical violence, I could get her to take off her sweater, I proceeded, “You will indeed take off that sweater.”

With us each sitting from 3 to 6 feet apart, with no threads whatsoever nor any bribes of any sort, I spoke for about 15 seconds.

She removed and handed me her sweater.

Your will has limits. Those who can see deeply enough into you and your circumstances can by mere voice cause you to do almost anything.

This is what the topics of advertising, mass programming, hypnosis, psychology, and such are all about. Don’t fool yourself. You make it harder on everyone else when you do.

Anecdote, without any merit. But even it were true, it does not mean anything, except that you were able to override her free will, and bend it to your wishes. The presumption in the thought experiment was that the OG knows what I am about to do, tells me what I am about to do, and I can freely do whatever I wish to do. Your story, even if accepted does not fulfill the criteria.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Anecdote, without any merit. But even it were true, it does not mean anything, except that you were able to override her free will, and bend it to your wishes. The presumption in the thought experiment was that the OG knows what I am about to do, tells me what I am about to do, and I can freely do whatever I wish to do. Your story, even if accepted does not fulfill the criteria.

How so? Isn’t he free to continue to speak (foreknowing that he will) and thereby turn your passion against you?

 

[Spock]

How so? Isn’t he free to continue to speak (foreknowing that he will) and thereby turn your passion against you?

He is free to talk, but not to directly interfere with my brain process. And mere talk cannot sway me. The prediciton is my my hands. My desire to prove him wrong is my priority. But, then again, I invite the OG to participate in the experiment. There is nothing else I can do. If he does not show up, I win, by default.

 

[James_S_Saint]

He is free to talk, but not to directly interfere with my brain process. And mere talk cannot sway me. The prediciton is my my hands. My desire to prove him wrong is my priority. But, then again, I invite the OG to participate in the experiment. There is nothing else I can do. If he does not show up, I win, by default.

There are many ways for your passions to be turned against you. It doesn’t really have to be by OG’s effort. What makes him OG is that he would have known that it was going to happen before he predicted and told you. Telling you merely set you up to prove him right.

You lost your case.

(and btw, this scenario already took place here on one of your own threads. Meet OG …of course you would disagree)

 

[AndyF]

Eucharisted:

Spock has set the standard and it is for the posters to decide if they wish to contribute in a constructive manner using pertinent data has is common debating protocol.

You may have not noticed but your posts are beginning to show signs of ad hominem which detracts from the momentum so far in which I consider an interesting thread.

Why not turn what you consider restricting into some fun and see if you can arrive at your point within the bounds of his rule, which is the real challenge anyway?

AndyF

 

[AndyF]

But he cannot know those things that are not, because there is nothing to know about them. There is no necessity of contemplation (considering possibilities) in such a being, because all is immediately known. All is actual; nothing not actual is possible – because possibility would have to involve a “change in the opinion”, as it were, of the omniscient being, which is not possible.

If an omniscient being were capable of change, then it would not be omniscient – because it would already have its own future opinion, and thus already have changed (a contradiction).

Consider God can create from nothing.

If I follow you then we can conclude of the things that aren’t, we have some things that aren’t and he cannot know, and, some things that aren’t and will know. How do the states of “not” differ? Is one self limiting and the other open to progression to things that aren’t and can be known.?

Perhaps I don’t follow.

It would seem then God can never experience the pleasure of conceptual discovery, which is a good.

AndyF

 

[James_S_Saint]

Consider God can create from nothing.

Does he really create from nothing, or from himself?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Consider God can create from nothing.

This seems to be confining God by time, if I understand you correctly.

Consider:

1. There is a time (T) in which nothing is, in which God knows everything that will come to be.
2. Since nothing is at time T, obviously something can be known about nothing (what will come to be).

But #1 above is flawed. There is no *time *when God has not created. With this understanding, the idea that “God cannot know that which does not exist” is perfectly coherent.

If I follow you then we can conclude of the things that aren’t, we have some things that aren’t and he cannot know, and, some things that aren’t and will know. How do the states of “not” differ? Is one self limiting and the other open to progression to things that aren’t and can be known.?

As I said above, the idea of progression does not apply to God. I fail to see how any thing that does not exist can possibly be known. Could someone please give me an example?

It would seem then God can never experience the pleasure of conceptual discovery, which is a good.

It is certainly a human good. But I don’t know how the idea of God “discovering” anything makes any sense.

Good questions, by the way.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Spock,

do you have a reply to post #110, i have been waiting patiently for you to show that time exists.

if it does not, then what does that say about omniscience? there is no future decision, there is no past choice. all events occur simultaneously. i would suggest that deals your denial of omniscience on those basis invalid.

maybe the metaphysical view of time was important to the discussion after all?

 

[AndyF]

Does he really create from nothing,

“My son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them, and consider that God made them out of nothing, and mankind also.” II Mach,VII., 28.

…or from himself?

“… would not be creation but mutation of existent being, but God would not become what he was not before. Finite being cannot be made out of infinite being any more than infinite being can be made out of finite being”. (Radio Replies, Vol 1 a650)

AndyF

 

[AndyF]

Prodigal_Son;

You said…“But he cannot know those things that are not, because there is nothing to know about them. There is no necessity of contemplation (considering possibilities) in such a being, because all is immediately known. All is actual; nothing not actual is possible – because possibility would have to involve a “change in the opinion”, as it were, of the omniscient being, which is not possible.”

I was trying to reconcile the point of God’s deciding when it was appropriate to create, which involves forming a concept, and, your posit about His not knowing about those things that aren’t, which he will now bring to form in order to conceptualize them.

According to scripture, He can create from nothing, (at the point I mentioned this I didn’t recall the reference, but I finally found it in II Mach, VII,28). At the point there is nothing but himself and about to be something by His cause, it would seem to suppose a knowledge of a thing that isn’t that will eventually have form.

But #1 above is flawed. There is no *time *when God has not created. With this understanding, the idea that “God cannot know that which does not exist” is perfectly coherent.

What works for me is seeing it has a chronology of events unfolding.

AndyF

 

[Betterave]

Ooops, we have a misunderstanding. I don’t say that omniscience implies anything. It does not imply brilliance, it does not imply stupidity. It merely says that OG somehow has information about the “totality of existence” - which includes the past and the present (in my opinion) and also the future (according to you). Of course it is plausible that OG is very smart, but this is not a logical necessity.

Okay, you got me on a technicality there! The point is that you claim that omniscience is compatible with stupidity. That’s still a problem: S-omniscience is not compatible with omniscience (in a sense which anyone would be inclined to apply the term to God). This concept is the one we’re supposed to be talking about. Remember your comment about moving goal-posts? That’s what you’re doing.

Out of curiosity do you think that data-banks literally have a lot of knowledge/info? Or just store a lot of knowledge/info? If a neutron bomb destroyed all sentient life, would computers and books keep on knowing in the absence of their human creators? This view would strike me, and I’m guessing pretty well everyone else, as absurd. Not you?

You presented this thought experiment about a neat and tricky way of giving a prediction, without giving it “really” (in a coded format). The prediction should contain two parts, one for my activities before I can decipher the prediction, and one for the time after I understand what the prediction is.

Evidently you want to impose this little ‘should’ on the thought-experiment. But what makes this more than an illicit ad hoc stipulation? What does this have to do with the original goal-posts?

Obviously, as soon as I understand the prediction, I am free to act contrary to it - thereby disproving omniscience. The only point of contention is about the part of the prediction for the duration of the “discovery process”. This must be a finite period. If I can never figure out the coded prediction, then eseentially there was no prediction. So we have to assume that eventually I will be able to figure out what the prediction says. I would act very predictably during this period, thereby lessening the significance of the prediction.

Not obviously, actually! What if the prediction is that you will have a massive heart attack the moment you have understand the prediction? What’s your free will going to do about that?

At most your version of the thought experiment can show that OG can “foresee” my actions for the very predictable period of the discovery phase. And that is not convincing. As soon as the cards are on the table, and I know what the prediction is all about, I am free to act contrary to the prediction, thereby invalidating it. That is what my argument says.

But again, this is a false assumption on your part, that the discovery phase will be very predictable. What if the prediction is in Polish, and once you have it translated you discover that it isn’t the actual prediction, but instructions sending you off on a complex quest to find the real prediction. (In my opinion, we’re perhaps starting to get dangerously close to reality with this kind of scenario - but you can take that or leave it.)

 

[Spock]

Okay, you got me on a technicality there! The point is that you claim that omniscience is compatible with stupidity. That’s still a problem: S-omniscience is not compatible with omniscience (in a sense which anyone would be inclined to apply the term to God). This concept is the one we’re supposed to be talking about. Remember your comment about moving goal-posts? That’s what you’re doing.

Out of curiosity do you think that data-banks literally have a lot of knowledge/info? Or just store a lot of knowledge/info? If a neutron bomb destroyed all sentient life, would computers and books keep on knowing in the absence of their human creators? This view would strike me, and I’m guessing pretty well everyone else, as absurd. Not you?

Yes, and no. It is conceivable that all that information stays there intact, and the system has a feature that it can analyze any question, look up the answer to them, and give the answer (which may be: “there is no pertinent data available”). The point is that understanding the infomation is not a prerequisite to having the information. But I am not arguing against the OG’s intelligence. I just wanted to point out that it is not a necessary corollary to omniscience.

Evidently you want to impose this little ‘should’ on the thought-experiment. But what makes this more than an illicit ad hoc stipulation? What does this have to do with the original goal-posts?

Oh, but that is the precise point of the whole thought experiment. To show that revealing the future to someone who has free will is a self-defeating proposition. If the prediction does not contain any reference to actual actions of agents with free will - only descriptions of deterministic events - then there is nothing “special” about it.

Not obviously, actually! What if the prediction is that you will have a massive heart attack the moment you have understand the prediction? What’s your free will going to do about that?

See my previous paragraph.

But again, this is a false assumption on your part, that the discovery phase will be very predictable. What if the prediction is in Polish, and once you have it translated you discover that it isn’t the actual prediction, but instructions sending you off on a complex quest to find the real prediction. (In my opinion, we’re perhaps starting to get dangerously close to reality with this kind of scenario - but you can take that or leave it.)

You are inventing more and more complex scenarios. Let’s cut to the chase: “if the prediction is revealed to me in an understandable format, if the prediction refers to actions I can freely undertake or not, then I can prove it wrong”. That is all I am claiming, and so far there is no argument against it. The scenarios you depict would insert a period of uncertainty. You claim that the accuracy of the prediction for this “interregnum” at least should give some indication that foreseeing the future of free actions is somehow plausible.

I can react in another way: “disregard the coded revelation”. A non-existent revelation is no different from a coded revelation - and we are back to square one. And don’t say that someone else may understand the coded revelation, compare it to my actual behavior, see the accuracy of it, and reveal it to me “post-facto”. I will disregard his testimony as irrelevant and possibly fradulent. As I said at the beginning, I only accept personal revelation which I undertsand, which pertains to free actions of mine. In such a case the prediction will necessarily fail - thus **proving **omniscience incorrect - or, if you prefer incompatible with free will.

 

[Betterave]

It is conceivable that all that information stays there intact, and the system has a feature that it can analyze any question, look up the answer to them, and give the answer (which may be: “there is no pertinent data available”).

Is information that can no longer inform anyone really information? Is a question that no one asks really a question?

Oh, but that is the precise point of the whole thought experiment. To show that revealing the future to someone who has free will is a self-defeating proposition. If the prediction does not contain any reference to actual actions of agents with free will - only descriptions of deterministic events - then there is nothing “special” about it.

But Spock, that’s obviously a ridiculous claim, isn’t it? Suppose you could make such a ‘nothing-special-about-it’ prediction. Everyone else in the world would think it was pretty special. But you wouldn’t? (That would just make you pretty ‘special’.)

You are inventing more and more complex scenarios. Let’s cut to the chase: “if the prediction is revealed to me in an understandable format, if the prediction refers to actions I can freely undertake or not, then I can prove it wrong”. That is all I am claiming, and so far there is no argument against it.

Are you quite serious??? Perhaps you should do some very careful re-reading.

The scenarios you depict would insert a period of uncertainty. You claim that the accuracy of the prediction for this “interregnum” at least should give some indication that foreseeing the future of free actions is somehow plausible.

I can react in another way: “disregard the coded revelation”. A non-existent revelation is no different from a coded revelation - and we are back to square one.

But a disregarded revelation, especially when intentionally disregarded, is different from a non-existent revelation, I dare say!!!

And don’t say that someone else may understand the coded revelation, compare it to my actual behavior, see the accuracy of it, and reveal it to me “post-facto”. I will disregard his testimony as irrelevant and possibly fradulent. As I said at the beginning, I only accept personal revelation which I undertsand, which pertains to free actions of mine. In such a case the prediction will necessarily fail - thus **proving **omniscience incorrect - or, if you prefer incompatible with free will.

Spock, if you want to disregard the prediction, of course you’re free to do so. But you don’t thereby prove anything about the incompatibility of omniscience with free will. You only prove that you do not want to have your unbelief disproven.

btw, OG knows that you don’t want to have your unbelief disproven.
(and if OG happens to be real and is God, remember: he still loves you anyway)

 

[Spock]

But Spock, that’s obviously a ridiculous claim, isn’t it? Suppose you could make such a ‘nothing-special-about-it’ prediction. Everyone else in the world would think it was pretty special. But you wouldn’t? (That would just make you pretty ‘special’.)

To predict something that is the result of a deterministic process is very spectacular, no question about that. But it is still not what omniscience is supposed to be, is it? We did agree that the present can be known by OG. We can agree that OG has a tremendous, all-encompassing knowledge of the laws of nature. All that can be presupposed as part of omniscience - and there is no problem with that. Therefore the prediciton of a deterministic process is just run-of-mill for OG. There is really nothing special about it for an OG.

The true measure of omniscience is the prediction of a non-deterministic process, aka. free will. And that is what I am arguing against. So far neither you, nor anyone else could establish how could a revealed and understood prediction be accurate if the free agent can act against it. All that complexity of the hypothetical revealed prediction in a coded format is just an attempt to postpone the true situation when the agent knows the prediciton, the agent is free to follow it, or act against it. That is the crux of the matter.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

To predict something that is the result of a deterministic process is very spectacular, no question about that. But it is still not what omniscience is supposed to be, is it? We did agree that the present can be known by OG. We can agree that OG has a tremendous, all-encompassing knowledge of the laws of nature. All that can be presupposed as part of omniscience - and there is no problem with that. Therefore the prediciton of a deterministic process is just run-of-mill for OG. There is really nothing special about it for an OG.

The true measure of omniscience is the prediction of a non-deterministic process, aka. free will. And that is what I am arguing against. So far neither you, nor anyone else could establish how could a revealed and understood prediction be accurate if the free agent can act against it. All that complexity of the hypothetical revealed prediction in a coded format is just an attempt to postpone the true situation when the agent knows the prediciton, the agent is free to follow it, or act against it. That is the crux of the matter.

There are two key premises to your argument, Spock.

1. If an omniscient being said that you would do x, and you have free will, you would be free not to do x.
2. An omniscient being is such that he would tell you to do x, being aware of all the facts in the case (including the fact that you would choose to be a contrarian).

You must be committed to #2, in order to prove what you’re saying. And yet, #2 cannot possibly be established.

Consider:

1. If Bob is always honest, and Bob says “This sentence is a lie”, then Bob is lying.
2. Bob is capable of saying such a sentence.

The conditional statement is true (although incompletely true), but #2 in this situation is obviously false. Significantly, this does not prove that Bob is not always honest.

All you’ve discovered is a paradox of omniscience, not a contradiction contained within it.