I would contend that what you’re describing cannot be knowledge. Knowledge is a certainty by definition. It is “known.” Probability trees are a web of the unknown. “Knowing” the tree =/= knowing reality. Probability is not real, just as numbers are not real. They are concepts. They do not fall into the realm of known reality/experience/matter. You describing knowing that 2 + 2 = 4 conceptually. You are not describing the knowledge of the four trees in your lawn, of which there is only one instance.
But we’re talking about the omniscience of an all powerful entity that can create and destroy universes on a whim. Of course it’s beyond our abilities, just as dogs aren’t building steam engines, we aren’t looking at multiple timelines when we make decisions. 🤷🏻♂️
I guess I am not communicating well enough but you’ve summarized the real question of this definition well: is the being within, or without our universe?
If above, then there is no contradiction. If they’re within our universe proper, on “our level” then there is a contradiction that can’t exist.
The power to create and destroy universes cannot come from within this universe. Hence this debate is rendered moot, if that is the premise that they are not within our universe/physics.
And there is only a true point in this type of discussion if you’re talking about what is applicable within our known universe.
FWIW I do not believe determinism can be real in any practical sense. Even if it is provably true, it’s not actually practically applicable in anyway because it is describing an inaccessible layer of physics, to us anyway. The “layer” above our determined one would necessarily have to be non-determined to have ignited the determined “sub-reality” of ours.
Omniscience may not be seeing a predetermined future, but rather the knowledge of every repercussion of every possible action you could make.
Such a being could actively make choices, while knowing the future, and all other possible futures that they chose to avoid.
I would contend that what you’re describing cannot be knowledge. Knowledge is a certainty by definition. It is “known.” Probability trees are a web of the unknown. “Knowing” the tree =/= knowing reality. Probability is not real, just as numbers are not real. They are concepts. They do not fall into the realm of known reality/experience/matter. You describing knowing that 2 + 2 = 4 conceptually. You are not describing the knowledge of the four trees in your lawn, of which there is only one instance.
But we’re talking about the omniscience of an all powerful entity that can create and destroy universes on a whim. Of course it’s beyond our abilities, just as dogs aren’t building steam engines, we aren’t looking at multiple timelines when we make decisions. 🤷🏻♂️
I guess I am not communicating well enough but you’ve summarized the real question of this definition well: is the being within, or without our universe?
If above, then there is no contradiction. If they’re within our universe proper, on “our level” then there is a contradiction that can’t exist.
The power to create and destroy universes cannot come from within this universe. Hence this debate is rendered moot, if that is the premise that they are not within our universe/physics.
And there is only a true point in this type of discussion if you’re talking about what is applicable within our known universe.
Yeah, I understood you, I just didn’t agree that omniscience and omnipotence could not possibly coexist.
I lean towards this view of omniscience, if only because I can’t handle the fact that every aspect of my life is predetermined.
FWIW I do not believe determinism can be real in any practical sense. Even if it is provably true, it’s not actually practically applicable in anyway because it is describing an inaccessible layer of physics, to us anyway. The “layer” above our determined one would necessarily have to be non-determined to have ignited the determined “sub-reality” of ours.