does QM prohibit an omniscient being?

[phoenixthoth]

the title says it all.

discuss.

[FZ+]

Only if the said being follows normal physical laws, and if we define omniscient in a certain way...

[phoenixthoth]

Fair enough. How would "omniscient" have to be defined in order that a physical law abiding being would not be omniscient?

Part of why this is in epistemology is that to be omniscient means to know everything; so how and what we know and what is knowable is important in the definiton of omnicscient.

[Rader]

Does QM prohibit a Omniscient Being?

Can QM prohibit what is not understood about it?

[loseyourname]

The logical impossibility of omnipotence prohibits the existence of an omnipotent being.

A simple paradox: We have one omnipotent being. He's bored, and since he is omnipotent, he decides to use his powers to create another omnipotent being. They're getting along perfectly well until they see a hamburger they both want. Only one can have it, so the loser wasn't really omnipotent. If it was the first omnipotent being, he was never omnipotent to begin with. If it was the second, not only was he not omnipotent, but the first being was not omnipotent either, as he tried to create another omnipotent being and failed.

[yesicanread]

The logical impossibility of omnipotence prohibits the existence of an omnipotent being.

A simple paradox: We have one omnipotent being. He's bored, and since he is omnipotent, he decides to use his powers to create another omnipotent being. They're getting along perfectly well until they see a hamburger they both want. Only one can have it, so the loser wasn't really omnipotent. If it was the first omnipotent being, he was never omnipotent to begin with. If it was the second, not only was he not omnipotent, but the first being was not omnipotent either, as he tried to create another omnipotent being and failed.

Is your idea a entire forluma, in the design of the order of operations ?

If so. Please translate or convert your formula to triangle inequality theorm + Newton's third law.

:smile:

[wuliheron]

the title says it all.

discuss.

No, words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in a given context. This includes words such as quantum mechanics and omniscience. For example, quantum mechanics includes such possibilities as the many worlds theory. On one of them there is someone who is omniscient as far as we are concerned.

Are they really, really omniscient? Who knows, who cares? Quantum Mechanics is just a theory after all.

[yesicanread]

the title says it all.

discuss.

I will explain QM. And a Omnesient person/character.

1.) A plane is composed of a triangle. Or three planar(on a plane) point, that aren't formin a line(colinear), form a "Plane".

2.) In this triangle is the triangle inequality theorem. So it follows.

3.) This theorem is composed as Q = Action < Q + A = 2Reaction

4.) Triangle inequality theorem = Triangle inequality theorem. So, since we act without knowing the answer, we will always be less than the Q & A.

5.) 1.) through 5.) explain the indetermination in Quantum Mechanics.

6.) Q & A existed before we asked a Q.

7.) Q = Q. So who thought before us ? And also knew the Answer to thoughts questions ?

8.) Therefore QM will never provide a whole Q&A, & the closer we get to one the closer someone else is to seeing the Q.

Check it out. 1 through 8. I'm not being religious in my points. Just deductive.

[loseyourname]

Is your idea a entire forluma, in the design of the order of operations ?

No it isn't. It's a sentential paradox, not a formulaic paradox. Answer it in sentences.

[Imparcticle]

The logical impossibility of omnipotence prohibits the existence of an omnipotent being.

A simple paradox: We have one omnipotent being. He's bored, and since he is omnipotent, he decides to use his powers to create another omnipotent being. They're getting along perfectly well until they see a hamburger they both want. Only one can have it, so the loser wasn't really omnipotent. If it was the first omnipotent being, he was never omnipotent to begin with. If it was the second, not only was he not omnipotent, but the first being was not omnipotent either, as he tried to create another omnipotent being and failed.

Why couldn't they share the hamburger? :tongue2:

Does omnipotence imply perfection?

[loseyourname]

Why couldn't they share the hamburger?

I had a feeling someone would say this. Someone always does. The point is that there is something they cannot do. If either eats the entire hamburger, they have just proven each other to not be omnipotent. As there is something they cannot do, they are not omnipotent, as an omnipotent being would be able to do anything.

[Imparcticle]

Do omnipotent beings neccesarily have to be perfect?

[loseyourname]

No, they just have to be all-powerful. They must be able to do anything. That is the definition of omnipotence.

[chronon]

An omniscient being would know what it was going to do in 5 minutes time. It would not be able to use this knowledge to do something else. Hence an omniscient being would not have free will.

[loseyourname]

Ah crap, the thread does say "omniscient," doesn't it? Disregard everything I said.

[phoenixthoth]

Interesting argument for an omniscient being not having free will...

I was wondering why you were posting about omnipotence. It's a related idea so I didn't say anything; I like your paradox. You're probably waiting for someone to ask why one of the beings couldn't just use their unlimited power to either stop wanting the hamburger and/or create a second hamburger.