Information AboutOmniscience |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT OMNISCIENCE | |
| social psychology | |
| self | |
|
The concept of omniscience can be defined naively as follows: :::''x is omniscient'' =''def'' In words: :::''x is omniscient'' =''def'' ''For all propositions p: if p (is true), then x knows that p (is true)'' But a critical logical analysis shows that this definition is too naive to be proper, and so it must be qualified as follows: :::''x is omniscient'' =''def'' In words: :::''x is omniscient'' =''def'' ''For all propositions p: if p (is true) and p is (logically) knowable, then x knows that p (is true)'' The latter definition is necessary, because there are logically true but logically unknowable propositions such as "Nobody knows that this sentence is true": :::''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. What is more, 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)'' Nontheists often claim that the very concept of omniscience is inherently contradictory, but at least the qualified definition directly above seems consistent in itself, even though it might turn out to contradict other theistic doctrines such as the doctrine of (libertarian) free will. It should be added that the above definitions cover what is called ''propositional Knowledge'' (''knowing that''), as opposed to ''experiential Knowledge'' (''knowing how''). That somebody is omniscient in the sense of possessing all possible propositional knowledge does not imply that she also possesses all possible experiential knowledge. Opinions differ as to whether the propositionally omniscient god of the theists is able to possess all experiential knowledge as well. But it seems at least doubtful that a divine person conceived of as infinite and necessary can really know ''how'' e.g. being a finite person and dying feels like. There is a third type of knowledge: ''practical'' or ''procedural Knowledge'' (''knowing how to do''). A related but distinct ability is 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 by 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):
Omniscience is also studied in loses. In such a game, the optimal outcome is to have your opponent swerve. The worst outcome is when nobody swerves. But if A knows that B is in fact omniscient, then A will simply decide to never swerve since A knows B will know A's logical decision and B will be forced to swerve to avoid a collision — this is assuming each player is logical and follows optimal strategy. Omniscience is also used in the field of literary analysis and criticism, referring to the Point Of View of the narrator. An omniscient narrator is almost always a third-person narrator, capable of revealing insights into characters and settings that would not be otherwise apparent from the events of the story and which no single character could be aware of. SEE ALSO EXTERNAL LINKS
|
|
|