Omniscience

For the album by Swans, see Omniscience (album).

Omniscience (/ɒmˈnɪsiəns/; omniscient point-of-view in writing) is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc. In monotheism, this ability is attributed to God. The God of the Bible is often referred to as "The Great I Am," among other similar names, which also incorporates his omnipresence and omnipotence. This concept is included in the Qur'an, where God is called "Al-'aleem". This is the infinite form of the verb "alema" which means to know. In Hinduism, 'omniscient' or 'all-knowing' (IAST: sarva-gya; Sanskrit: सर्वज्ञ ) 'omnipotent' or 'all-able' (IAST: sarva-samartha; Sanskrit: सर्व समर्थ) and 'omnipresent' or 'all-pervading' (IAST: sarva-vyāpi; Sanskrit: सर्व व्यापि) are attributes of divinity or spiritual 'perfections' (Sanskrit: siddhi). In Latin, omnis means "all" and sciens means "knowing"

Definitions

There is a distinction between:

• inherent omniscience - the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known.
• total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.

Some modern theologians argue that God's omniscience is inherent rather than total, and that God chooses to limit his omniscience in order to preserve the freewill and dignity of his creatures. Certain theologians of the 16th Century, comfortable with the definition of God as being omniscient in the total sense, in order for worthy beings' abilities to choose freely, embraced the doctrine of predestination.

Controversies

Omnipotence (unlimited power) is sometimes understood to also imply the capacity to know everything that will be.

Nontheism often claims that the very concept of omniscience is inherently contradictory.

Whether Omniscience, particularly regarding the choices that a human will make, is compatible with free will has been debated by theists and philosophers. The argument that divine foreknowledge is not compatible with free will is known as theological fatalism. Generally, if humans are truly free to choose between different alternatives, it is very difficult to understand how God could know what this choice will be. Various responses have been proposed to this argument. One possible solution is that God could know every possible life you might live, but allows for free will according to laws set in place that cannot be contradicted. God would know all possible ways to live and all the outcomes, but a human being with free will would choose which specific life to actually live out, one decision at a time. God would allow for the ability to choose, and to not have full power over all in what was chosen by a human being each step of the way. God would be all knowing in terms of infinite specific details of every possible life you could live.

God created knowledge

Some theists argue that God created all knowledge and has ready access thereto. This statement invokes a circular time contradiction: presupposing the existence of God, before knowledge existed, there was no knowledge at all, which means that God was unable to possess knowledge prior to its creation. Alternately if knowledge was not a "creation" but merely existed in God's mind for all time there would be no contradiction. In Thomistic thought, which holds God to exist outside of time due to his ability to perceive everything at once, everything which God knows in his mind already exists. Hence, God would know of nothing that was not in existence (or else it would exist), and God would also know everything that was in existence (or else it would not exist), and God would possess this knowledge of what did exist and what did not exist at any point in the history of time.

The circular time contradiction can suppose anything concerning God, such as the creation of life, meaning before God created life, he wasn't alive. Moreover to assume any more attributes, to then say God is merciful, but before the creation of mercy, he wouldn't have been merciful, and before the creation of the concept of negation (meaning to assume something as not), no one would have any concept of what is not. These apparent contradictions, however, presuppose that such attributes are separately defined and detached from God Himself, which is not necessarily so. It is not a given that attributes which can be assigned to or used to describe mankind,can be equally (or even similarly) acribed to God the Creator Himself. Take good and evil for example: Goodness is biblically defined as that which is of God; it is intrinsic to His being and is revealed most prominently through His provision of Old Testament Law, the keeping of which is the very definition of goodness and the neglecting of which (on even the slightest of grounds), is the epitome of evil. A similar argument could be laid down concerning God's omniscience (i.e. knowledge). It even eludes the idea a lot more even to assume the concept of "nothing" or negation was created, therefore it is seemingly impossible to conceive such a notion where it draws down to a paradox.

To assume that knowledge in Plato's sense as described to be a belief that's true, it then means that before everything came into being, it was all to be conceived as total imagination by God until the set of truth. One verse "God created man in his own Image" states that God imagined the form of humans, taking image as a root word for imagine, mistakenly understood as man to look like God.

It should be added that the above definitions of Omniscience cover what is called propositional knowledge (knowing that), as opposed to experiential knowledge (knowing how). That some entity is omniscient in the sense of possessing all possible propositional knowledge does not imply that it 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 obvious that a divine infinite being conceived of as necessary infinitely knowledgeable would also know how, for example, a finite person [man] dying feels like as He [God] would have access to all knowledge including the obvious experiences of the dying human. There is a third type of knowledge: practical or procedural knowledge (knowing how to do). If omniscience is taken to be all knowledge then all knowledge of all types would be fully known and comprehended.

The Omniscient Creating Knowledge Problem

There are arguments suggesting that the true cause of all causation can not be that which is slave to require a cause for its own existence, or even to know of its own existence. Thus it can be said that one can not know how to create knowledge into existence because it is slave to require it as a base of inquiry to itself. This would then violate the premise of such an entity being omniscient since it can not know how to create knowledge. This is especially true when we understand that Knowledge is a body of information to which is the base of inquiry. It comes down to information itself being the principle of all principles that are seen to govern the base of all knowledge, and those that which require knowledge to be all that which they are. It's a question of where and how does something as complex as consciousness arise and exist. Here it is said that consciousness is a product to which can not exist without the base principles of causation, or to where consciousness is too complex and can not exist without cause. This comes from those exploring the idea that things to which are not conscious would require less cause to exist than those things to which are conscious. These principles have been argued in regards to information theory by those who see information itself as the cause and substance to everything. As referenced here: Information: The Material Physical Cause of Causation These arguments also seem to argue that there are three fundamental principles to which govern all things, and all things of complex to which includes consciousness itself. These principles also seem to divide individuals to where no one individual could be Omniscient without suggesting all individuals, things, objects, or places as apart of a single mind, or seen as pure Solipsism. This is thus stating that information is the substance itself to which is the substance and base principle to everything in or of existence. Thus noted as the cause of all causation because not a single thing could seem to exist without it. And in knowing this, the base principle of information is understood to have three basic attributes commonly known as:

• Positive
• Negative
• Neutral

These attributes come into understanding because it seems like there can only ever be a positive, negative, or neutral: piece or state of information, action, reaction, process, choice, decision, phenomenon, system, emerging property, environment, feedback, motion, moral, ethic, thought, idea, emotion, Selection, natural selection, adaptation, response, stimuli, existence (negative not existing), capacity (negative having no capacity to contain), time, event, mathematical equation, solution, Answer, image, perception, ability, function, oscillation, inertia, belief, or energy. We can explore this through a simple example below:

Einstein said: "You can talk about the ethical foundation of science, but you can't talk about the scientific foundation of ethics."
Einstein also said: "Everything in life is vibration."

Well, some information theorists might put this argument into a more clearly defined argument:

Energy has three properties:

• Positive
• Negative
• Neutral

Ethics, or Morals:

• Positive
• Negative
• Neutral

For example we can reference Consciousness as a Self-organizing Process by Allan Combs. This is where information and energy are seen as two sides of the same coin. Thus the philosophy of information and energy goes seems to state that existence is seen as a phenomenal reality of physical self-oscillating, and self-organizing energy, or a Complex adaptive system that makes you, us, the stars, matter, anything with mass, or anything with consciousness possible. "A universal set of all sets". Without information, it seems there can be no consciousness, no awareness, no existence, no objects, no things, no places, or entities. Information is thus conceptually conceived as a material physical substance, or energy in different states, structures, and complexities. It's also seen under this argument as the true cause of causation of everything that exists, or can possibly ever exist. Thus all things including consciousness are seen as emerging properties not without cause. This Philosophical view brings the argument to the Omniscience Paradoxes below:

The Omniscience Paradoxes

The Omniscience Paradox can be defined by these questions,

• "Can an omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, timeless, boundless, limitless, and uncontained Entity create that which it doesn't already know?"

• "If information is the substance and causation to all that exists, would an omniscient entity not literally be everything and anything in, or of existence?"

Well if such an entity is boundless and limitless to which is uncontained, its omniscience would thus need to be infinite. Thus saying it could create that which it doesn't already know would defy its omniscience on an equally infinite scale. If it were omniscient without bounds or limits, it would defy its omnipotence, boundlessness, and limitlessness. It would even collapse its status of being uncontained. And if it where eternally Omniscient without bounds or limits, how could it create anything at all? If information theory is correct, would not this entity be the sum total of all that exists?

This also brings us to the question of how one can "know" how to create the following, which also seems to be the foundation of cause to our own existence. That is, how can an entity design and bring all the following listed objects or concepts into existence, when it requires, or may require them to exist itself? How can one thus be omniscient without them?

• Reality
• Existence
• Information
• Intelligence
• Consciousness
• Logic and mathematics
• Time (the process to create time would in itself require time)
• Complexity
• The five basic senses (Touch, Smell, Hear, Sight, Taste) (In order to be an observer, and know anything including its own existence, a conscious mind will require the tools of observation in order to know, experience, perceive, respond, or act)

When we approach this subject of the paradox of knowledge, or the creation of, we can notice many of these problem areas that concern omniscience and knowledge in regards to such supposed omniscient entities. Thus it can be said that such an argument self-collapses in every area of the supposed attributes given when anyone of them is taken out of the equation by another conflicting attribute. Especially in the case or state of absolute Omniscience. We can explore these problems in religious ideologies such as Christianity (as an example amongst others). In Orthodox Christianity there is a set of specific attributes to which they use to describe their God with. Among these attributes are as follows:

St John of Damascus, The Fount of Knowledge:

Abstract 1:
"The uncreate, the unoriginate, the immortal, the bound- less, the eternal, the immaterial, the good, the creative, the just, the enlightening, the unchangeable, the passionless, the uncircumscribed, the uncontained, the unlimited, the indefi- nable, the invisible, the inconceivable, the wanting nothing, the having absolute power and authority, the life-giving, the almighty, the infinitely powerful, the sanctifying and com- municating, the containing and sustaining all things, and the providing for all all these and the like He possesses by His nature. They are not received from any other source; on the contrary, it is His nature that communicates all good to His own creatures in accordance with the capacity of each."

Abstract 2:
"And yet again, there is His knowing of all things by a simple act of knowing. And there is His distinctly seeing with His divine, all-seeing, and immaterial eye all things at once"

1. Omniscient
2. Boundless
3. Unlimited
4. Uncontained
5. The containing and sustaining of all things
6. Timeless
7. Omnipresent

These seven attributes also led many to question if those with such religious beliefs are unaware that they are seemingly depositing the idea of pure solipsism. Here the argument can be made that even if such an entity would deny the existence of other minds or not, it would still be solipsism. Under this argument in regards to omniscience, one person just stating there isn't any other individual minds would be equal to said entity saying there are no other individual minds. Thus we have to consider that all minds that exist are of this entity's own mind. In light of this, anyone arguing against the argument would be The entity arguing with itself just for the sake of doings so, or for the amusement of doing so. Regardless of what reply anyone might have to this, the six attributes on that list can only mean pure Solipsism in order to be Omniscient without bounds, limits, or containment. This includes number 5 on the list in regards to containing and sustaining all things. These attributes also directly conflict with inherent omniscience stance, or our own individualism since it would be placing limits to a said to be limitless, uncontained, boundless God. However, the worst part isn't any of the above. The worst part is that even if one would argue that such an entity was only to be all knowing in regards to what is knowable, or existent, it would still be depositing the idea of Solipsism as noted in the example below:

Omniscient Solipsism from a Designers Perspective:
(This as if you are the Omniscient Entity about to design and create something into existence. Such as a human being)

I =: reference to all information that gives I an Identity, substance, dimension, value, an awareness, an existence, an intelligence, or a consciousness.

1. I'm Omniscient
2. I have an idea of something I want to build, construct, or make existent
3. I know infinitely everything about this thing, person, or place infinitely before, and infinitely after I have constructed it, or even thought of it.
4. I would know in my design everything it will infinitely ever do.
5. I would know everything about my design's essence or being to the point of actually, and literally being that of my design (object, entity, thing, or place) in every infinitely literal way. (and we must pay close attention to the term infinite)
6. I would know all the above infinitely in the past, present, and future.
7. This thing I designed would only be able to do what it was designed to do, and what I already infinitely know it will do, even to the point of it actually being literally me, and literally me doing all those things myself in every infinite way imaginable.
8. Even if I wanted to state that I am only omniscient to which is knowable, 5, 6(past, and present), and 7 would all be knowable. Omniscience would translate to I, the said entity being existence itself in the best case possible, or everything that is existent in every infinite way.

Omniscience vs Freewill

See : Determinism, Freewill and argument from free will

Anterograde Omniscience

Anterograde Omniscience is the type of Omniscience used to incorporate complete knowledge of the future into God. It has been often criticized by the opponents, stating that Free-Will is incoherent with Anterograde omniscience.

A common objection towards free-will is the fact that God knows the future, and what is already known is not considered part of free-will, thus is considered predestination. Moreover stating that predestination and free-will are incoherent, because God would perfectly know everything about the future. Moreover if heaven were eternal, God would know everything the people would do during their time in bliss, laying an infinite series of determinism.

If the future was given the definition of Physics, it can be drawn down to this. The past is something that's known, the future is something that is not known but may have an infinite series of possible branched time-lines and the present is the eliminator of possibilities. If God were to know the future very precisely, it wouldn't even be considered the future since it's a logical fallacy to call it the future if given the specific definition. Therefore the future wouldn't exist. Moreover, the present wouldn't exist, thus everything would be considered "the past" since the past is something that's known with certainty, not a possibility (according to physics). The problem would persist within the nature of God himself, such as he, having a future or even things about what's he's gonna think next.

A possible correction is to state that God doesn't know the future. If this were true, it wouldn't compete with his omnipotence, since no one else would know the future ahead of God.

Another correction would be that God knows all possibilities of what something was gonna be, meaning that he would see an infinite number of timelines laid out on a plane, and such time lines would still remain to exist even if not chosen. Such as God would know every possible way of how something was goanna be like, in which no one else would know of.

Non-theological uses

Omniscience is also studied in game theory, where it is not necessarily an advantageous quality if one's omniscience is a published fact. For example, in the game of chicken: two people each drive a car towards the other. The first to swerve to avoid a collision 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.

The word Omniscient is used to describe a fictional character in the Devin Townsend album "Ziltoid the Omniscient".

Theological representations

The concepts of omniscience can be defined as follows (using the notation of modal logic):

x is omniscient =_def $\forall p(p\Rightarrow Kxp)$

In words, for total omniscience:

x is omniscient =_def For all propositions p: if p (is true), then x knows that p (is true)

For inherent omniscience one interprets Kxp in this and the following as x can know that p is true, so for inherent omniscience this proposition reads:

x is omniscient =_def For all propositions p: if p (is true), then x can know 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 $\forall p((p\land \Diamond Kp)\Rightarrow Kxp)$

In words:

x is omniscient =_def For all propositions p: if p (is true) and p is (logically) knowable, then x knows [/can know] 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 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 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 $\forall p((p\land \Diamond Kxp)\Rightarrow Kxp)$

In words:

x is omniscient =_def For all propositions p: if p (is true) and p is (logically) knowable to x, then x knows [/can know] that p (is true)'

Omniscience in Buddhist India

The topic of omniscience has been much debated in various Indian traditions, but no more so than by the Buddhists. After Dharmakirti's excursions into the subject of what constitutes a valid cognition, Śāntarakṣita and his student Kamalaśīla thoroughly investigated the subject in the Tattvasamgraha and its commentary the Panjika. The arguments in the text can be broadly grouped into four sections:

• The refutation that cognitions, either perceived, inferred, or otherwise, can be used to refute omniscience.
• A demonstration of the possibility of omniscience through apprehending the selfless universal nature of all knowables, by examining what it means to be ignorant and the nature of mind and awareness.
• A demonstration of the total omniscience where all individual characteristics (svalaksana) are available to the omniscient being.
• The specific demonstration of Shakyamuni Buddha's non-exclusive omniscience.

See also

• Omnibenevolence
• Omnipotence
• Omnipresence
• Impassibility
• Pantomath
• Predestination
• Problem of evil
• Epistemology
• Theory
• String Theory

External links

• Edward Wierenga. "Omniscience". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.