Question

Consider a thought experiment involving 'something' and three individuals attempting to understand it: one person claims it is a red ball, another asserts it is a simulation, and the third insists it is a cat. Now, an omniscient entity enters and declares it to beX. If we define omniscience as possessing complete and certain knowledge (implying infallible justification), it would imply thatXis the true nature of the 'something,' rendering the other possibilities false.(Note: A possibility where something could be subjectively or simultaneously be a red ball, cat,'X'etc. itself is another possibility but it is still in contrast with the other possibilities mentioned before/not same as the before) However, the omniscient entity cannot disprove the other possibilities as false since the 'something' could potentially be a red ball, a simulation, or a cat, because they are possible explanations or definitions for that something. Basically, if something hasR1, R2, R3, etc. ways to exist/explain/occur, then you cannot prove it to be'X'because that would implyR1, R2, R3in the first place are not possible ways at all but by definition they are. The only way one could be certain is if somehow'X'is the only possible way to explain or exist. Even if the entity were infallible, knowing everything without error or deception, they would need to prove this infallibility. Yet, they cannot establish that their knowledge is exhaustive or devoid of falsehood. Consider another scenario: a being capable of creating a simulated reality with conscious entities. These entities experience subjective qualia, which are unobservable by anyone other than the experiencing entity. This implies that even the creator of the simulation cannot have absolute certainty about the subjective experiences within it. Applying this reasoning to omniscience,if qualia exists(not saying it does for sure, just seeing the implications down this path), there are aspects of reality unknowable to any entity, including an omniscient one. It is conceptually possible for the being to experience that same qualia, but the problem here is, it cannot be certain if it is actually facing the same qualia. Furthermore, even if we assume a higher power created the universe, it cannot prove its own act of creation, as it would rely on its own perception and could question its memory as being fallible. In conclusion, complete knowledge of reality is impossible for any entity, human or divine, due to limitations in perception and the existence of subjective experiences that elude direct observation or measurement. Claims of omniscience lack a solid foundation and cannot be substantiated. The arguments surrounding omniscience often lead to circular reasoning or infinite regress, and can lead to rendering the concept self-contradictory. The argument is based on the definition of 'omniscience' stated earlier in this question itself, and not on any other definition. TLDR An entity is something that exists apart from other things, having its own independent existence; dictionary says. Strictly speaking, by this definition, we cannot say that even each individual (even man) is an entity. Humans have no existenceapart form other things, having its own independent existence.Also, existence of each individual is not permanent. A proof must be true if it is a proof. And the truth must be immutable. Then, how or where to store the proof in a mutable about/from the immutable/omniscient?

Answer 1

The question addresses the philosophical challenges of proving omniscience and the limitations in the concept of knowledge. Existence as a predicate, as critiqued by Immanuel Kant, and issues of subjective experience indicate that claims of omniscience may lack substantiation. Anselm's ontological argument also faces problems when connecting mental concepts with reality.

Step-by-step explanation:

The thought experiment you've outlined touches on important philosophical debates concerning the nature of knowledge, omniscience, and the limits of existence. Immanuel Kant critiqued the ontological argument for the existence of God, suggesting that existence is not a predicate that can simply be added to the definition of a being. Instead, asserting that something exists (like God or a perfect island) does not make it so in reality since existence outside the mind (extra-mentally) does not necessarily follow from mental conception (intra-mentally).

Anselm's ontological argument, on the other hand, claims that the concept of God is uniquely such that its existence is implied by its definition. However, this has been critiqued for conflating the mental concept of God with God's actual existence. In relation to the concept of an omniscient being, we run into issues when considering the possibility of subjective experiences or 'qualia'. If qualia are indeed subjective and unknowable to others, it introduces the possibility that there are aspects of reality that even an omniscient being could not truly comprehend or know.

Furthermore, the challenge of proving omniscience is inherently complex. Even assuming the existence of a higher power responsible for creating the universe, without the ability to objectively verify subjective experiences or to have complete confidence in the infallibility of memory and perception, the claim to omniscience remains unsubstantiated. These issues suggest that the concept of omniscience, as traditionally understood, encounters various philosophical challenges that question its coherence and viability.