4 ms·
> Are you saying an omniscient being is impossible, because something about quantum mechanics implies that it is impossible to possess all possible knowledge?
by justinpombrio 8y ago
> Are you saying an omniscient being is impossible, because something about quantum mechanics implies that it is impossible to possess all possible knowledge?
> Or are you saying that even if an omniscient being possesses all possible knowledge, they would nevertheless be unable to accurately predict all sequences because of some knowledge we have about quantum mechanics?
That's an extremely astute question. I'm impressed that you managed to realize that that's an important distinction and that you don't know which it is.
It's actually the latter, and incredibly we can prove it. And the proof of this is surprisingly accessible:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcqZHYo7ONs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcqZHYo7ONs
- jawns 8y agoI'm still not sold on this. I'm no quantum mechanics expert, but I do have a philosophy background, and it seems as if true omniscience -- possessing all possible knowledge -- seems like it should transcend this limitation. Maybe I'm thinking about a form of omniscience that exists outside of time, in which case, of course an omniscient being would know what happens next, because they would know the future just as well as the past. (Example: Any omniscient being will know which photons will pass through a polarizing lens not based on prediction but based on already knowing the outcome.)
- thfuran 8y agoSuch an entity cannot exist.
- prophesi 8y agoSuch a statement can't be proven.
- thfuran 8y agoSure, just append "unless it turns out we were wrong" to every scientific and mathematical claim if it helps you feel better.
- prophesi 8y agoI only append that to philosophical claims and string theory.
- chrisweekly 8y ago"philosophical claims and string theory" sounds redundant to me
- jawns 8y agoInteresting. I can point you to some very influential philosophers who argue that not only can such an entity exist, it necessarily exists. Can you tell me more about why you think it can't?
- gus_massa 8y agoApparently many other influential philosophers disagree, so take that proof with a grain of salt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_argument#Criticisms_of_the_trademark_argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_argument#Criticisms_...
- gus_massa 8y agoThere are always hidden assumptions. The proof only applies up to half-omniscience being that know everything in the current and past of the universe, but not in the future. As a less powerful entity, if you know all the result in the lab until now, you can consider an experiment made 1 hour ago and "predict" the outcome without breaking the laws of quantum mechanics.