At TA's request, here is a thread for people to debate whether omniscience necessarily indicates prescience, and the implications this has on free will. Please keep religion out of this debate, as that is still a banned topic.
And...
Go!
Cross linking:
On a strange aside, wether or not ominsenciece and prescience go hand in hand would logically have to coincide with your belife in prescience in general. If it is possible to know the future, aka, the future is a thing and can thus be known, then an omnisincent entity must, by definition, know it. If an omnisincent entity does not know the future, then it is impossible to know it. (And thus the future must not be a thing at all, the future does not exist.)
Hrm... it appears that there's a slight disagreement on just what omniscience means. The most common two are "knows everything" and "knows everything that can be known". If we go by the first then omniscience would seem to indicate prescience, as the future is part of "everything". By the second, however, omniscience does not seem to necessarily indicate prescience as that may be under the list of things that are unknowable.
Of course, as whatever is on the list of things that are unknowable is unknowable, I really couldn't say for sure.
Hehe.... For the record, I did fnally answer this to my satisfaction. The answer is a QUALIFIED Yes. Omniscience grants one the ability to know the most likely outcome given any scenario. There are always "exceptions", but for the most part the more variables that are known, the more accurate the "prediction". In the case of omniscience, it is assumed that ALL variables are known. Therefore, the prediction is most often going to be most accurate.
Well, you could go by the first definition and still belive that omniscencience does not neccessitate presencience. You just have to go by the belife that said entity does know 'everything', but that the future does not truely exist. It is not a thing, and thus not something that falls under the heading of 'everything'.
Hehe.... For the record, I did fnally answer this to my satisfaction. The answer is a QUALIFIED Yes. Omniscience grants one the ability to know the most likely outcome given any scenario. There are always "exceptions", but for the most part the more variables that are known, the more accurate the "prediction". In the case of omniscience, it is assumed that ALL variables are known. Therefore, the prediction is most often going to be most accurate.
BUT, you failed to consider the lack of omnipotence. Just because you know everything does not mean that you have the ability to combine all that knowledge into a prediction quickly enough for it to still be considered such. AKA, if it takes you longer to predict the outcome than it takes for the event to come to pass, it cannot really be considered prescience. You can be given every variable relevant to wether a particular shot will hit the target, but unless you can crunch the math before th bullet hits, you cannot really claim a prediction, only a hypohthosis about what happened.
Edit: that sounded more accusational than intended. You may have well considered it, but any such consideration was not adequatly related in your post.
A working example of what I said before (two actually). First, stories - most that are involved in this game have read many stories. How common is a "surprise ending" to you? Moreover, in your personal lives, when observing the actions, motivations, etc of your friends, how often do you "know" what will end up happening in their lives? (my batting average is fairly high on the latter - my standard answer is that "all the stories have already been written")
I didn't consider omnipotence at all in my musings. The crunch time (for me) wasn't a factor, as I consider it part and parcel of omniscience. As mentioned in my examples - this is something that I, myself, practice (in albeit a FAR more limited fashion). That's what brought about the musing. If I can do such (being mortal), what would a being that is "omniscient" be able to do. Moreover, based on my personal beliefs (which include the doctrine of free will), what would that mean?
However, I don't recommend you let such thoughts keep you awake at night. 
Hrm... but if we consider this prescience to be 100% accurate predictions, that doesn't actually conflict with free will. The person still has the freedom to choose, it's just that the prescient being correctly predicts which choice the person will make.
I mean really... if I say "that car ahead of me is going to take the next right" and turn out to be right, I haven't robbed the driver of free will, I've just demonstrated my analytic skills.
Of course, that runs into trouble when it comes to truely random events, as those should be unpredictable.
Assuming no alterations by the unknowable (depending on whether the unknowable exists. Do deities count if they exist?) of course he can. The future is decided entirely by cause and effect. If you know literally every cause in the universe you could know every effect as well.
Of course, that runs into trouble when it comes to truely random events, as those should be unpredictable.
What is random, though? For example, one we're familiar with - rolling a d6. if you know the speed of the toss, the angle of impact, the specific densities and elasticities of the materials involved, and the orientation of the cube at impact (plus any rotational forces) - you could predict the "random" roll.
Of course, that runs into trouble when it comes to truely random events, as those should be unpredictable.
What is random, though? For example, one we're familiar with - rolling a d6. if you know the speed of the toss, the angle of impact, the specific densities and elasticities of the materials involved, and the orientation of the cube at impact (plus any rotational forces) - you could predict the "random" roll.
Even better: If you know the exact body composition and mental faculties of the person rolling, the air pressure in the room, the very very slight gravitational pull of all objects in the room you can predict the speed, spin and angle of toss/impact before its even rolled.
Of course, that runs into trouble when it comes to truely random events, as those should be unpredictable.
What is random, though? For example, one we're familiar with - rolling a d6. if you know the speed of the toss, the angle of impact, the specific densities and elasticities of the materials involved, and the orientation of the cube at impact (plus any rotational forces) - you could predict the "random" roll.
What about the uncertainty principle and omniscience? Some things really are random and have only a probability density for any variation in actions. Those things are not concrete.
From my (admittedly limited) understanding of quantum physics there are truely random events at that level. This has been exploited for things such as quantum cryptography. I'll agree that it's possible these things are predictable and we just don't know the method, but I don't find it hard to believe that there are truely random events in the universe, and if prescience is 100% reliant on accurate predictions then they should be flustered by truely random events.
Of course, that runs into trouble when it comes to truely random events, as those should be unpredictable.
What is random, though? For example, one we're familiar with - rolling a d6. if you know the speed of the toss, the angle of impact, the specific densities and elasticities of the materials involved, and the orientation of the cube at impact (plus any rotational forces) - you could predict the "random" roll.What about the uncertainty principle and omniscience? Some things really are random and have only a probability density for any variation in actions. Those things are not concrete.
Like what?
Again (as I'm a scientist, not a philosopher) - my personal belief is that is WHY on the electronic level there is "quantum fluctuation" - it is the essence of free will. It is what allows us to go against what would otherwise be predetermined. You just need that one electron to misfire, just a bit.... However, I do not DISALLOW the fact that it may not be so random - but rather a pattern that we just do not comprehend as of yet.
Omniscience, in the truest most literal sense of the term, would indeed imply prescience. Whether or not "true randomness" actually exists on the quantum(or some lower) level or not is irrelevant; an omniscient person would still know. I can go on, but I don't know just what does or does not constitute a "discussion on religion". I haven't actively visited these boards for long so I might be able to give a short idea of what I believe if it's only what I believe and not up for debate or comment, or for all I know this post could be deleted if I say the word "God". So I'll say naught.
You guys are totally wasting your time with all this speculation. There's a simpler way. All you need to do is ask an omniscient being whether or not it's also prescient. Duh. What a bunch of dummies.
You guys are totally wasting your time with all this speculation. There's a simpler way. All you need to do is ask an omniscient being whether or not it's also prescient. Duh. What a bunch of dummies.
That...would probably not work, as there are no such beings.
However, I agree that it indicate prescience. If you know everything, then you know the outcomes as well, so...
But only if the future is something that can be known. If there is no fourth dimension as we like to think there is and the world is just in a constant state of flux from one slice to another then there isn't a "future" to know.
Further, that's only if you're talking about the strongest form of omniscience. Weaker forms of it are limited to "things that are knowable" which could include the future.
And regardless of all that, what would that indicate about free will? While I see no problem between "very accurate prediction of behavior" and the notion of free will, if the world from the beginning to the end was written in stone before the beginning and is utterly unchangeable, then how can free will exist?
That...would probably not work, as there are no such beings.
Derp?
And regardless of all that, what would that indicate about free will? While I see no problem between "very accurate prediction of behavior" and the notion of free will, if the world from the beginning to the end was written in stone before the beginning and is utterly unchangeable, then how can free will exist?
I think that's the crux of the matter. If the future is something that can be known as opposed to something that can be predicted, there is no free will. We're just players without a copy of the script.
Hrm... then again, a prescient being only works if the multi-world theory is false. No sliders for you!
Bender: "So, do you know what I'm gonna do before I do it?"
God: "Yes."
Bender: "What if I do something different?"
God: "Then I don't know that."
Omniscience in my opinion means that an entity knows everything that has happened and is happening and every possible outcome, but not necessarily what will happen. In this I view free will(among other things) as a variable. It also means they know the most likely outcome.
But only if the future is something that can be known. If there is no fourth dimension as we like to think there is and the world is just in a constant state of flux from one slice to another then there isn't a "future" to know.
Further, that's only if you're talking about the strongest form of omniscience. Weaker forms of it are limited to "things that are knowable" which could include the future.
And regardless of all that, what would that indicate about free will? While I see no problem between "very accurate prediction of behavior" and the notion of free will, if the world from the beginning to the end was written in stone before the beginning and is utterly unchangeable, then how can free will exist?
The difference between free will and your actions relying on so many variables and complexities that it takes omniscience to know them are really only different in the taste they leave in your mouth.
But like I said before, say you do know all the statistics that can affect that dice toss. Assume, for the sake of argument, that you did not know how hard the die was going to be thrown before it was thrown. In order to know, from all the relevant information, how the dice would land, would require alot of math. To predict how the wind was going to blow, or how hard he was going to throw it, and at what angle would require alot of 'math' as well. That is alot of effort, a lot of focus, just to know the outcome of one insignificant action. To know the result of every action that will ever take place before it happens by deducing it from known conditions and with absolute certainty? This is a being who's abilities go far beyond mere omnisentience. The ability to analyze all things all the time without error is not an inherent part of any description of omnisentent that I have ever seen. Hell, a more beliveable method of presentience for an omnisentient being to predict the outcome of an event would be to just guess, all outcomes he could think of, and then know which one of his predictions is the most correct.
The implications of presentience on free will are mute. Just because someone knows what you will do does not mean you did not decide to do it. Unless someone can somehow link the two in a way that does not depend upon religion (AKA an omnisentient creator) I suggest we avoid that part of the discussion.
@TA: a couple of things... First - knowing which guess is most correct equates to essentially the same exercise. Second, to understand the computational power and to avoid the religious overtones, I'll use an analogy. Suppose the knowledge of all things came from computers. A simple computer chip, connected via network functioning at light speed, with unlimited bandwidth. Each computer has the power of the human brain - and, in fact, is implanted in the brain of every living person (and able to record all sensory data, as well as thought patterns experienced by that person). In addition, there is a stockpile of computers in a central bank connected to all of them. One computer for each person that has EVER lived, with the same computational power, and the same data stored. At that point we are talking of approximate 1 trillion (if not more) computers - having the total knowledge of everything that has happened in human history, and everything that has happened/is happening in the present. With that much data and computing power such calculations would be trivial.
One word. Understatement.
Having that kind of memory, geez if you really think about that it's very...................godlike. Not in a religious sense,but in the sense that someone with that kind computing power could probably influence things to the maximum possible degree with little actual effort necessary.
well - computation and data storage doesn't necessarily equate to influence, just knowledge. However, as stated, "crunching the numbers", as in Toad's example, would be trivial. Look at the various distributed processing systems that are out there that use spare processing power now. Such endeavors as SETI, and Pi computations that are far beyond that of human capability.
@TA: a couple of things... First - knowing which guess is most correct equates to essentially the same exercise. Second, to understand the computational power and to avoid the religious overtones, I'll use an analogy. Suppose the knowledge of all things came from computers. A simple computer chip, connected via network functioning at light speed, with unlimited bandwidth. Each computer has the power of the human brain - and, in fact, is implanted in the brain of every living person (and able to record all sensory data, as well as thought patterns experienced by that person). In addition, there is a stockpile of computers in a central bank connected to all of them. One computer for each person that has EVER lived, with the same computational power, and the same data stored. At that point we are talking of approximate 1 trillion (if not more) computers - having the total knowledge of everything that has happened in human history, and everything that has happened/is happening in the present. With that much data and computing power such calculations would be trivial.
But you do not need 1 trillion computers to be omniscient. All you need is a big hard drive. No light speed supercomputing umber Internet is required, nor necessarily included.
You would though, the amount of data streaming in from everyone is unfathomable. processing it from each person would necessarily require its own processor.
You would though, the amount of data streaming in from everyone is unfathomable. processing it from each person would necessarily require its own processor.
I'm confused. Since when does knowledge imply application? I mean, it's best when the two come together, but is it really so hard to imagine an omniscient being that suffers from sensory-overload?
I'm confused. Since when does knowledge imply application? I mean, it's best when the two come together, but is it really so hard to imagine an omniscient being that suffers from sensory-overload?
This is true, I suppose. It's not difficult to find examples of knowledge being "had", but not applied. However, that brings in the question of whether all-knowing implies all-wise. (int and wis are two different stats, after all :D)
I'm confused. Since when does knowledge imply application? I mean, it's best when the two come together, but is it really so hard to imagine an omniscient being that suffers from sensory-overload?
This is true, I suppose. It's not difficult to find examples of knowledge being "had", but not applied. However, that brings in the question of whether all-knowing implies all-wise. (int and wis are two different stats, after all :D)
Yah, thats more or less what I was getting at. Just because you know huge ammounts of information dosn't mean that you can practically apply it all the time. Knowing how to extrapolate somethign dosn't necessarily mean that you can do so, atleast not in a timely fashion.
But there IS no need to crunch numbers- you know the answer.
Omniscience implies knowing EVERYTHING. That means if someone walks up to you and asks if Sharon tosses a die tomorrow in a casino downtown while slightly drunk, you know the answer. You also know the answer if she is sober, if the casino is actually out of state, and if she does this two days from now.
You don't need to crunch numbers, just as you don't need to analyze the angle of someone's arm to know how hard they are tossing the die, nor review the die's manufacturer to ensure that the material they use is up to grade, or test the wind currents to calculate interference. You already know, because you know everything.
Omniscience is, simply put, outside comprehension. We can't really think about how much space you need to store it, or how much time it takes to process because knowing everything is simply outside our knowledge. Knowing everything implies knowing where every particle in the universe is, has been, and will be, and every single pattern formed by each one interacting with every other one, ever, and then knowing how each pattern interacts with each other pattern, all the way on up to knowing how the dichotomy of good and evil impacts the taste of tequila. Knowing everything means knowing everything.
But there IS no need to crunch numbers- you know the answer.
Omniscience implies knowing EVERYTHING.
IF that is the definition you're running with. It is not the only definition for omniscience.
Omniscience implies knowing EVERYTHING.
Question: Why did you decide that the future is a thing?
Hypothetical: Your example demonstrates that, in the continuity of your example, that people can make choices, and that thoes choices can affect the future (Your all knowing being was able to tell you the outcome if she got drunk and if she did not get drunk). So, what if you shot her? What if you slipped something in her drink? What if the casino burns down, a bird lands on the table, or the ceiling falls on her head? Your hypothetical quere listed several criteria that could affect the outcome, but how many did you not ask about? What are the total number of variable states, each able to be manipulated by countless decisions of numerous individuals, that could change the outcome? So, your omnisenteint being knows what each one of thoes variables is, and how it will effect the outcome. Knows the outcome for every possible combination of them. Yet his answer to the question presented will still have to be "I don't know." because the decisions have not been made, and thus the variables have not all been set. You cannot ask a specific enough question of such a being to get an answer, at best you could narrow it down to any of a vast number of possible outcomes. Unless, of course, all the choices are already set in stone ahead of time. But then, your being would be unable to answer your second question, "What if she where drunk" because she could not get drunk. She would not be able to make that choice, and thus freewill does not exist. Either way, there exist questions that your being would not be able to answer, that answers simply do not exist for. I suggest that the future is such a notion, that it is not a thing, and thus does not fall under the purveiw of everything.
For some, omniscience is defined as knowing everything there is to know. Which, as has been pointed out, leaves space for "the unknown" - whether that is the future or the impact of freewill. Other definitions of omniscience are that the being simply knows everything. What is included in everything? Everything, of course. THere are no loop-holes, you know that someone will turn left, that the light will turn green in 3...2...1..., and what schnozzberries taste like.
Definitions for prescience, however are a bit more fuzzy it seems. THey range from knowledge of events before they happen, to being able to predict the events of the future, to even knowing what the future will be, exactly. That means, prescience could be knowing (just because) that the final score between the Lions and the Steelers will be 14-7. It could be calculating the variables and coming to the conclusion that the final score between the Lions and Steelers will be 14-7. It can even be knowing the final score because you had a vision, got a betamax tape from the future, or heard the voice of Pelor tell you while you were bathing. That also brings up another trouble with prescience: Scope.
When it comes to prescience, sure you know what will happen before it happens; but, what's the scope? Can you always see what's coming? Do you see the world in double - in the here and now as well as 2 minutes later? Do you get flashes of insight into the future? Is there this feeling of dread that you get when you know someone you see will die?
So, rather than arguing whether omniscience indicates prescience, many people are arguing whether his definition of omniscience indicates her definition of prescience.
Oh deary me. I seem to have rambled. . .
Of course, that runs into trouble when it comes to truely random events, as those should be unpredictable.
What is random, though? For example, one we're familiar with - rolling a d6. if you know the speed of the toss, the angle of impact, the specific densities and elasticities of the materials involved, and the orientation of the cube at impact (plus any rotational forces) - you could predict the "random" roll.What about the uncertainty principle and omniscience? Some things really are random and have only a probability density for any variation in actions. Those things are not concrete.
I'm a physics student on my second year, and we have been studying some quantum mechanics over here as well. What is important to remember about quantum mechanics (really, about physics in general), is that it's a mathematical model that seems to corelate well with the environments. This means that when we talk about quantum probabilities and the randomness of a particle's behaviour, then we're only saying it because it's the best way we can describe it. There's no telling if there's something smaller that pulls the strings on a sub quantum level. There's no telling whether or not God throws dice. If I told you otherwise then I'd be a bad physicist.
The uncertainty principle describes the least amount of uncertainty that we attain from one observation of nature. So it is more a description of the link between the observer and nature than nature itself, so to speak. I imagine that an omniscient would know exactly how such a system behaves, with no uncertainty, because he doesn't have to observe it, he just has to know it.
So I think it comes down to three different types of omniscients:
One that knows the precise state of everything as it is presently (i.e. I know that this guy on the other side of the world has 200.000 strands of hair on his head. And also, Schrödingers cat just died.)
One that knows the precise state of everything and is capable of applying it to calculate future outcomes (You're going to be quantum tunelling through the floor of your house tomorrow.)
One that knows everything in the past, present and future.