• CarbonIceDragon
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Hypothetically, if such an entity did exist, shouldn’t that same logic also extend to knowing his own future choices? Since they already know everything that will happen, they also know everything that they themselves are going to do, and therefore, have essentially no agency themselves, because even if their power is infinite, it is already set beforehand what they are going to use that power for and they are essentially just along for the ride?

    For that matter, if they know everything, and therefore know everything at all points in time all at once and so shouldn’t perceive time linearly, then there is no room for such a being to really engage in information processing, since that requires taking in information, and doing something with it to produce new information, and this kind of being has already taken in all the information possible from the very beginning, does not experience a meaningful flow of time (and so cannot experience change with which to apply to that input), and already has all the outputs from the very beginning too. Since thinking is a form of information processing, it occurs to me a truly omniscient being like this should basically be a philosophical zombie; basically an unconscious object of incredible scope that merely appears to be a conscious thinking entity to humans due to our limited perception of time.

    • Sterile_Technique@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      As a thought experiment, if we think of a god as a being that exists in the 5th dimension, it could be omnipotent/omniscient to the lower 4 (3 spacial + time) but only have a limited presence/influence regarding things like probability, and no influence whatsoever on things like other realities.

      Similar to how we exist in the 4th dimension and can fully manipulate the lower three; but while we exist and are aware of time, we can’t manipulate it outside of trying to nudge it with extreme speed or gravity.

      A god in 5th dimension then would kinda look like someone playing the Sims and making use of save states to try to optimize every decision in the game; and while you might be aware that other games exist, -this- one can only ever be Sims.

      This would make omnipotence a question of scope - to the individual sim, the player is all powerful in the ways that an individual sim can experience, so, omnipotent; but that player can’t do shit to Minecraft, or instances of Sims running on other computers, so, simultaneously not omnipotent.

      Basically the Many Worlds theory, but each reality would have its own god.

      …which still doesn’t really pass the all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good test, but it does at least frame the concept of god in a more interesting way from a mythology perspective.

      No religion that I’m aware of acknowledges things like dimensions, but then they present their god as existing in a way that’s clearly outside the scope of the 4 we experience… So, there’s wiggle room even in actual religious lore in how we package things like “omnipotence”.

      • phx@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I love movies and books that touch on topics like this, like situations where you’ve got a super-being but they build in limitations.

        • one who can “see” into the future for hundreds of years but can only actually view one timeline simultaneously and in real-time (meaning they could see any event in the future but would need to burn time in “the now” like watching a recorded video)

        • beings that constantly lose track of what the “current” reality/timeline is in a seas of possibilities (MIB3’s “Griffin” is a fun example of this)

        • being able to know what significant future events will occur but unable to influence whether they do or not. Unavoidable destiny (e.g. Emma’s Death in “the Time Machine” is unavoidable, though the exact many it occurs changes)

        • Knowing what “bad things” will happen but still being on the “best track” timeline as deviations make things worse (Loki, Butterfly Effect)

        • Macro level knowledge overcrowding micro level suffering in the backdrop of inter-galactic scales and infinite time

        • semi-autonomous superpowers commanded by unfathomable beings without fine control and a limited self-awareness

        None of this of course is an argument for the existence of an actual deity that loves us but ignores us, however they are fun ways to think of how one might know the future yet not want or be able to change it.

    • Slowy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      This only exists if there is one possible outcome, it’s possible for the future to be undetermined, and still have an omniscient being know all future possibilities. They would know the infinite possible outcomes of their choices, all the iterations, but would still have free will to decide which path is followed. In this scenario people still don’t have free will because of the omniscience problem.

      • CarbonIceDragon
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Shouldn’t they still know which path they will end up choosing to take?

        • Slowy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Potentially yes, but it kind of breaks down if you ask whether they: made the choice (making a choice and knowing your own choice are sort of the same thing?) and followed the path to that outcome; or knew the path and made the choices to adhere to it. Obviously it’s hypothetical and also trying to assign some logic to something that’s not logical, so it gets kind of messy.