@MohsinMan99: If it is all powerful, why would it have a survival instinct? You can't just say it does for the purpose of argument without forcing us to contextualize this being.
Also, the MacGyver, thing was a joke if you didn't pick up on that.
Drinking, watching anime, and waxing philosophic; what a great night.
@MohsinMan99: But why would it care to? To give it a survival instinct would to abdicate your own definition of omniscient.
@Anzendenai: A paradox or misnomer; if something is impossible, then there is no way to do it. An omniscient being would know that. On the other hand, if it does know how, then it is, by definition, possible.
@JonSmith: An omnipotent being doesn't necessarily know anything. An omniscient being would not necessarily be able to do anything. As the sage advice at the end of every episode of G.I. Joe says, "Knowing is half the battle." Only half. The argument for knowledge being power is a completely different argument.
@MohsinMan99: Also, as to my original argument about the brain; omniscience does not imply instinct. To suggest that if it would have the ability to survive, it would take every measure to do so is a complete assumption.
@JonSmith: I'm still holding to omnipotence and omniscience being different things. When people suggest that anything is possible if the being is a god, it's kind of like saying, "Fuck your argument. I'm going to make stuff up." Think of what "All-powerful" suggests. A being with all of the power. Power, that by the limitations of physics, is limited. If it wanted to change those limits, it would require more power than exists, therefore, more power than it has. While I refuse to discuss the pros and cons of mythological beings, I will gladly engage in a discussion about theoretical physics with the limited knowledge and understanding that I have. While meta-physical manifestations do fall in this category of discussion, it is limited to conjecture. To suggest that one could know for a fact the properties of a metaphysical omniscient being is just apocryphal nonsense, and should probably just go ahead and try to start a religion.
@MohsinMan99 said:
I say: By definition, the very idea of omniscience defies human logic. Hence the paradoxes but let's not get into there. Suffice to say that a true Omniscient would have absolute knowledge of things(this includes knowledge we wouldn't be even capable of understanding/imagining), the past, present, future,etc- i.e. everything (absolute everything).
You say that no human could understand true omniscience, the go on to explain it. ಠ_ಠ
@MohsinMan99 said:
@JonSmith: It was unavoidable I suppose. :D
It was. You are the one talking about god while I was talking about something completely different.
@MohsinMan99 said:
Dunno who MacGyver is...
Invalidates everything you have said thus far and shall venture to say in the future. Good day.
@MohsinMan99: The answer is a lack of resources. Even MacGyver needed a paper clip.
@MohsinMan99: @Anzendenai: You arguments are simply equating to the idea that with enough knowledge, one could alter reality. You are assuming things that aren't known to us. Maybe an omniscient thing would have powers to slide across the mataverse into a dimension with the appropriate laws of physics for it's current predicament, but if you could prove this, you would be world famous physicists. We can only know that omniscience is simply a collection of knowledge, not a key to unlocking a god-like control over everything.
@MohsinMan99: The way I put it in my original post was essentially an omniscient object. It sounds like you are making an argument for an omniscient being without a physical manifestation. I'm simply saying that knowledge and the ability to do something useful with it are two different things. for example, say someone was intimately familiar with the operation of a parachute. The know all the ins and outs of parachutes and skydiving in general. Say then that they jump from a plane a mile above the ground, but without a parachute. That knowledge of how to use a device that could save them would not. Likewise if they were and expert on aeronautics or birds, there would be little else they could do but flap their arms until they finally reach the ground. An omniscient being that has no way to meaningfully interact in not omnipotent, or potent for that matter. You are describing a metaphysical manifestation whereas I'm positing something more like a flash drive with survival manuals loaded on it being tossed into the woods. Not a good one either; think like those free 4gb ones that people get for free and work for a week. I think the key difference in our definitions is that yours assumes certain properties of reality such as a metaverse a la string theory and the like, and mine accounts for the single universe we know exists and all of the physical properties that that implies.
tl;dr We are either arguing beliefs or semantics, both equally pointless.
@MohsinMan99: I realize that it would know how to survive in any circumstance, but it does not have the ability to do so. A conclusion that the brain itself would come to. The construct of the omniscient brain lacks the ability to affect any of its surroundings or anything else. It has no means of mobility or to enact any kind of force or influence. It cannot even convey information. For all intents and purposes, it is simply an object that occupies a space...an object made of tasty, tasty meat.
Hey, this is like having a pen pal.
