Interesting thought about omniscience.

[rageoftyrael]

Here's my non-dual (God and creation are not-two) pantheistic way of looking at it. 'We are God' as kooky as that sounds to those with Abrahamic world enculturation.

God/Brahman is pure consciousness; being-awareness-bliss (sat-chit-ananda in Hinduism). God/Brahman in His creative aspect creates a play/drama in which He separates Himself from Himself and returns Himself to Himself. In this view God/Brahman consciousness animates finite forms to experience limitation and then the glory of expansion back to that Oneness. It's all divine sport.

I often don't have much use for these kinds of ideas, but I can definitely see what you are talking about. I imagine an infinite being's single biggest challenge would be to combat boredom. Or combat a desire to end one's self(if you even can) out of said boredom.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

If they had free will, then there could be more than one outcome.
But Bob knows the outcome in advance.
Because Bob cannot be wrong, the outcome he knows is the only possible one.
Free will isn't free if only one of a human's choices is possible.
It is at best the illusion of free will.
So......you may pick free will.....or you may pick Bob being omniscient.
But you cannot pick both.

In fact, it doesn't even matter whether Bob knows the future or not, only that it is knowable. If it is knowable to Bob, or anyone else, then it is still unalterable, and thus there is no free will.

If Bob has an envelope containing (with perfect, unalterable knowledge) what I will eat tomorrow for lunch, it doesn't matter whether Bob actually opens the envelope and reads the contents or not. I never had any other option other than to eat what was indicated in the envelope, and thus never had any choice in the matter.

 

[George-ananda]

I often don't have much use for these kinds of ideas, but I can definitely see what you are talking about. I imagine an infinite being's single biggest challenge would be to combat boredom. Or combat a desire to end one's self(if you even can) out of said boredom.

Well, look at it this way too. I get to grow and expand my consciousness until I am infinite. The expansion and growing is enjoyable so I am glad for the game when seen from the big picture.

 

[Demonslayer]

unless he went to get more chips at the time.

LOL. The best thing about being God is you can eat bags and bags of Doritos and never get fat.

 

[Revoltingest]

In fact, it doesn't even matter whether Bob knows the future or not, only that it is knowable. If it is knowable to Bob, or anyone else, then it is still unalterable, and thus there is no free will.

If Bob has an envelope containing (with perfect, unalterable knowledge) what I will eat tomorrow for lunch, it doesn't matter whether Bob actually opens the envelope and reads the contents or not. I never had any other option other than to eat what was indicated in the envelope, and thus never had any choice in the matter.

You are correct.
(You must've been reading some of my many posts on this very issue!)
Believers have argued that Bob chooses to not know.
The argument present utterly crushes this lame counter.
Is that lamentation I hear?

 

[Demonslayer]

Is that lamentation I hear?

You can't have lamentation without lame, after all.

 

[Revoltingest]

You can't have lamentation without lame, after all.

I have this video of Kilgore....

 

[BSM1]

For the sake of the topic, yes.



I don't see why that must be the case.

Because if something exists that is not God, i.e. the thought, then God cannot be omniscient because She would not have known the thought before it was "thunk".. God would have to be He is the thinker as well as the thought itself before it existed (redundant, I know) to be truly all-knowing.

 

[rageoftyrael]

Because if something exists that is not God, i.e. the thought, then God cannot be omniscient because She would not have known the thought before it was "thunk".. God would have to be He is the thinker as well as the thought itself before it existed (redundant, I know) to be truly all-knowing.

Nah, an omniscient being would be perfectly capable of knowing what it's thoughts will be before it has them.

 

[lunakilo]

Swap "I" and "God" in that sentence and you've got it exactly right.

How do you know?

 

[lunakilo]

I've been thru this before on RF.
Free will is incompatible with omniscience.
Why?
The omniscient one (call'm Bob) would know the choices we make in advance.
Testing us would therefore be unnecessary.

You are assuming the testing is for Bob's sake.

Bob, being omniscient doesn't need to test in order to know the answer, he alrerady knows how the testee will react and what the testee will learn from the test.
So Bob could decide to test someone because he wants the outcome of the test to be ... what he knows will be the outcome of the test.

 

[Revoltingest]

You are assuming the testing is for Bob's sake.

Yes, in that sense of the word.
But I also addressed it as a form of programming his humans.

Bob, being omniscient doesn't need to test in order to know the answer, he alrerady knows how the testee will react and what the testee will learn from the test.
So Bob could decide to test someone because he wants the outcome of the test to be ... what he knows will be the outcome of the test.

Bob sure is amused by predictable games, eh?

 

[Demonslayer]

How do you know?

Satan told me.

 

[lunakilo]

A replay assumes the play already took place, and allows for the idea that the players had control over their actions.

If I knew the result of the game BEFORE it was played, than the score was going to be 27-7 no matter what the players tried to do. Each and every pass and run had to play out the way I knew it would, or else my foreknowledge would have been incorrect.

Can God be incorrect about his foreknowledge? Can we "surprise" God?

For Bob there is no difference between the play and the replay. Bob knows the outcome of both in advance.

It is the players who don't know the outcome of the play in advance.
They do know the outcome of the replay though, because it is the same as the outcome of the play which has already been played.
For the players there is a difference.

Bob cannot be wrong. Bob knows all.

Assume you have a choice.
1) stay where you are right now for at least 30 seconds.
2) leave. I.e. go somewhere else before 30 seconds have passed

You have a choice. You don't know what you will choose before you actually choose.
You have the option of either staying or leaving. Your free will lets you choose.

Bob of course knows in advance which you will choose, but you don't.
The fact that the outcome is fixed in advance doesn't mean you don't choose.

 

[Revoltingest]

For Bob there is no difference between the play and the replay. Bob knows the outcome of both in advance.

It is the players who don't know the outcome of the play in advance.
They do know the outcome of the replay though, because it is the same as the outcome of the play which has already been played.
For the players there is a difference.

Bob cannot be wrong. Bob knows all.

Assume you have a choice.
1) stay where you are right now for at least 30 seconds.
2) leave. I.e. go somewhere else before 30 seconds have passed

You have a choice. You don't know what you will choose before you actually choose.
You have the option of either staying or leaving. Your free will lets you choose.

Bob of course knows in advance which you will choose, but you don't.
The fact that the outcome is fixed in advance doesn't mean you don't choose.

Only one choice is possible.
(Anything else would violate the Bob-inerrantly-knows-the-future premise.)
So we're pre-programmed to believe we're making a choice.

Life is a pinball game & we're all pinballs....we think we choose what to bounce off of,
but we're entirely ballistic. Bob sets it all in motion when he presses the ball launcher.

 

[Revoltingest]

Zeus wants me to pick up fresh donuts on the way to the meeting.

You dare not disobey!
Ganesh told me to eat chocolate & bacon today.

 

[lunakilo]

The only thing I can objectively address is logical conclusions from premises.
Free will & Bob's omniscience are incompatible.

Depends on your definition of free will of course

Only one choice is possible.
(Anything else would violate the Bob-inerrantly-knows-the-future premise.)
So we're pre-programmed to believe we're making a choice.

Life is a pinball game & we're all pinballs....we think we choose what to bounce off of,
but we're entirely ballistic. Bob sets it all in motion when he presses the ball launcher.

As I understand your argument, you say that because there is only one possible outcome there is no real choice. I might think I could have chosen another option, but in fact I couldn't because that would mean that Bob was wrong. And Bob is never wrong.

But this only makes a difference to someone with Bobs knowledge.
I don't have Bobs knowledge, so when I am faced with a choice, Bobs knowledge is irrellevant to me.
I make my choice and that is that.

It is in fact completely irrellevant to me if Bob exists and has the knowledge of my choice. I will make my choice whether Bob knows I will make that choice or not.
It is my choice that I made of my own free will.

It is a matter of perspective (or definition of "free will")

Bob sure is amused by predictable games, eh?

He actually tired of them and introduced quantum mechanics. Now the universe is ****ed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Depends on your definition of free will of course


As I understand your argument, you say that because there is only one possible outcome there is no real choice. I might think I could have chosen another option, but in fact I couldn't because that would mean that Bob was wrong. And Bob is never wrong.

But this only makes a difference to someone with Bobs knowledge.
I don't have Bobs knowledge, so when I am faced with a choice, Bobs knowledge is irrellevant to me.
I make my choice and that is that.

It is in fact completely irrellevant to me if Bob exists and has the knowledge of my choice. I will make my choice whether Bob knows I will make that choice or not.
It is my choice that I made of my own free will.

It is a matter of perspective (or definition of "free will")


He actually tired of them and introduced quantum mechanics. Now the universe is ****ed.

Of course, Bob knew all along that he'd do this.
And quantum mechanics is fully deterministic from his perspective.

 

[arthra]

There has to be a degree of free-will... God doesn't love automatons....

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes, in that sense of the word.
But I also addressed it as a form of programming his humans.

Bob sure is amused by predictable games, eh?

IS Bob the piano teacher amused by the predictable outcome of his lessons? that you become a better piano player? I think he finds joy in your progress yes