The omniscient award.

[Fantastic_Four]

Its the omniscient award! Pick one person who you think is most omniscient. I'm holding off on my vote for now.

[No Wow]

oh god no thanks

Omniscientsy would be more of a curse than a gift because you would know every one hated you for it. Moreover it has been proven not to exist.

It would be really boring aswell

I enjoy searching through Wikipedia for fun to find my knowledge.

I am not voting because I think it is stupid and immature and noone on this site is even close to being wise let alone omniscient. (Depending whether you believe it exists)

I cant let this stand

[Paj Meen Ah]

mmm..i have to say, one cant be the "Most" omniscent. The ywould have to be omniscient or just know all lot of things about the world, and its workings.

The concept of omniscience can be defined naively as follows:
x is omniscient =def For all propositions p: if p (is true), then x knows that p (is true)

But this is too naive to be proper, so:
x is omniscient =def For all propositions p: if p (is true) and p is (logically) knowable, then x knows that p (is true)

Basically, No-one that is or ever has been, or ever conceivably will be, is omniscient.

In short, please rephrase your question. Or dont, because there is no logical answer.

[No Wow]

Excuse me no, that actually explains nothing, making something simple seem complicated.

This better describes why omniscience cannot occur

N = "Nobody knows that N is true"

If N is true, then nobody knows that N is true. And if N is false, then it is not the case that nobody knows that N is true, which means that somebody knows that N is true. And if somebody knows that N is true, then N is true. Therefore, N is true in any case. But if N is true in any case, then it (= "Nobody knows that this sentence is true") is logically true and nobody knows it.

So therefore that proves omniscience is stupid and fantastic_four should spend his time doing something else

Although there are other theories to undermine this theory they just get far too complicated and just are too hard to discuss without my brain hurting.

So I vote no award

[Paj Meen Ah]

That is merely suppoerting my arguement, as is the following:

The logically true N is not only not known to be true but also impossibly known to be true, for what is logically true is impossibly false. Sentence N is a logical counter-example to the unqualified definition of "omniscience", but it does not undermine the qualified one.

Unfortunately, there are further logical examples that seem to undermine even this restricted definition, such as the following one (called "The Strengthened Divine Liar"):

B = "God does not believe that B is true"

If B is true, then God (or any other person) does not believe that B is true and thus doesn't know that B is true. Therefore, if B is true, then there is a truth (viz. "B is true") which God doesn't know. And if B is not true (= false), then God falsely believes that B is true. But to believe the falsity that B is true is not to believe the truth that B is not true. Therefore, if B is not true, then there is a truth (viz. "B is not true") which God doesn't know. So, in any case there is a truth that God does not and cannot know, for knowledge implies true belief.

While sentence N is a non-knower-relative unknowability, B is a knower-relative unknowability, which means that our concept of omniscience apparently needs to be redefined again:

x is omniscient =def

In words:

x is omniscient =def For all propositions p: if p (is true) and p is (logically) knowable to x, then x knows that p (is true)



I would have held an award for the "wisest and most knowledgable membe of Rule 3" rather than this complex dive into the workings of life.

[No Wow]

What is your arguement?

I'm trying to prove why omniscience is rubbish and disproving it to support my claim whereas you are fabricating some defnse which makes no sense

[Paj Meen Ah]

My arguement is :that no-one can be "omniscient", or the "most omniscient"

I'd rater we stop talking about such an incredibly complex subject before we get thrown into hell.

[No Wow]

pashy said:

My arguement is :that no-one can be "omniscient", or the "most omniscient"

Oh. Well you can't be the most omniscient because it means all knowing, and you can't be more all-knowing.

duh.

[Paj Meen Ah]

Thats what i said!!!

[No Wow]

Well what was all this shizzle doing clogging up my life?

pashy said:

The logically true N is not only not known to be true but also impossibly known to be true, for what is logically true is impossibly false. Sentence N is a logical counter-example to the unqualified definition of "omniscience", but it does not undermine the qualified one.

Unfortunately, there are further logical examples that seem to undermine even this restricted definition, such as the following one (called "The Strengthened Divine Liar"):

B = "God does not believe that B is true"

If B is true, then God (or any other person) does not believe that B is true and thus doesn't know that B is true. Therefore, if B is true, then there is a truth (viz. "B is true") which God doesn't know. And if B is not true (= false), then God falsely believes that B is true. But to believe the falsity that B is true is not to believe the truth that B is not true. Therefore, if B is not true, then there is a truth (viz. "B is not true") which God doesn't know. So, in any case there is a truth that God does not and cannot know, for knowledge implies true belief.

While sentence N is a non-knower-relative unknowability, B is a knower-relative unknowability, which means that our concept of omniscience apparently needs to be redefined again:

x is omniscient =def

In words:

x is omniscient =def For all propositions p: if p (is true) and p is (logically) knowable to x, then x knows that p (is true)



I would have held an award for the "wisest and most knowledgable membe of Rule 3" rather than this complex dive into the workings of life.

If you have knowledge you have to know when to apply it aswell, taert!

[Paj Meen Ah]

You better know yourself, liitle girl!

[Fantastic_Four]

Fine. I'll make a new thread.

/thread closed