More proof. If you were omniscient, you would have known that you would want to delete all this. You would just not have posted it in the first place. — Bitter Crank
I, for one, can safely say that I don't know if I'm omniscient or not, as a matter of certainty I mean. — jorndoe
Isn't this taking the metaphysical concept of omniscience and treating it as a logical concept? A category error. — Cavacava
ω = I'm omniscient — jorndoe
If you're omniscient, then you must also know that you are. — jorndoe
Fitch's paradox asserts that the existence of an unknown truth is unknowable. — Wikipedia entry for Fitch's paradox of knowability
I, for one, can safely say that I don't know if I'm omniscient or not, as a matter of certainty I mean.
So, I guess I'm not, I can't be, as per above.
But then I actually know that I'm not, with certainty, since I just found that out deductively. — jorndoe
Fitch's paradox asserts that the existence of an unknown truth is unknowable. — Wikipedia entry for Fitch's paradox of knowability
Anti-realism holds that stuff is dependent in some way on us, that thinking makes it so. That is, some statement p is true only if it is believed or known to be true.
For anti-realism, something's being true is the same as it's being known to be true.
Now a direct implication of this is that if something is true, then it is known - that we know everything.
Anti-realism is apparently committed to omniscience.
The problem does not occur in realism, which happily admits to there being unknown truths. — Banno
I can safely say that I don't know if I'm omniscient or not, — jorndoe
Whether the concept is coherent depends on how it is used. — Sam26
Notice that "p is an unknown truth" uses a proper name - p - for the unknown truth. It is quite different to the everyday "there are things we do not know". — Banno
It's like saying, "I both know, and don't know, that X is true, which is contradictory. — Sam26
To assert the truth of p is to claim knowledge that p. To assert that the truth of p is unknown is to disavow knowledge that p. So "p is an unknown truth" is simultaneously to claim and to disavow knowledge. — Cuthbert
Notice that "p is an unknown truth" uses a proper name - p - for the unknown truth. — Banno
So, it's true, but I don't know it. What!?This is essentially what you're doing by affirming an unknown truth. — Sam26
If you're omniscient, then you must also know that you are. Kind of comes with the territory.
By contraposition, if you don't know that you're omniscient, then you're not. Makes sense.
I, for one, can safely say that I don't know if I'm omniscient or not, as a matter of certainty I mean.
So, I guess I'm not, I can't be, as per above.
But then I actually know that I'm not, with certainty, since I just found that out deductively.
I know there are things unknown to me.
Which is contrary to me safely not knowing in the first place.
Contradiction, it seems? What went wrong?
As an aside, of course I'm not omniscient, that would be a rather bold assertion.
Also, there are a few ways in which omniscience leads to an infinite regress. — jorndoe
But can we buy the proposition that there are true propositions that cannot be known? And can we know that proposition to be true? — Cuthbert
1. Can have meaning in the usual sense (as referents). Which meanings of this strain makes omniscience coherent? — Agent Smith
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.