From: cnc@balboa.eng.uci.edu (Christopher Christensen)
Subject: Re: Is omniscience impossible?
Newsgroups: alt.atheism
Organization: University of California, Irvine
Date: 13 Nov 92 11:53:50 GMT

cnc:
>>[Fine explanation of how omniscience is impossible for a
>>being moving "inexorably forward on the time axis" deleted]

Dave Weaver:
>I have no problem with this part of your argument. You don't even
>have to appeal to d/c time problem. You can just argue that onmiscience
>necessarily includes complete knowledge of the future, and that 
>beings bound in time as we are cannot completely know the future.
>Apologies to Jean Dixon :)

A being not "bound in time" doesn't make any sense.. at least, not to me.

>But, if you postulate at least one additional time dimension, and let  
>a being interact within both, then time for this being would be planar 
>rather than linear (or spherical for two added dimensions). He could
>then have omniscience of events on our timeline, moving independantly
>to any and all points on our timeline.  Combine this with extra spacial
>dimensions and it makes omniscience a possibility.

You don't need the extra spacial dimensions because they don't
buy you anything towards omniscience.  I don't see how adding extra
dimensions of space (thus making the universe infinitely larger) helps
any, it would just add more area for the "omniscient" to keep track of.

You also don't need to add any extra dimensions of time.  If the
"omniscient" can freely "move" along the time axis and through space
as well, then it can know truly everything.  Why bother to add these
extra dimensions?  it only complicates matters.

The problem is that it makes no sense to "move" through time since
the word "move" implies movement with respect to time.
If you postulate another time axis so that an "omniscient" can move
through our time axis with respect to that one, it _still_ doesn't
allow omniscience.  In order for the "omniscient" to be able to _do_
anything, it must have some kind of time-axis to be able to _do_ things
with respect to.  When the being is limited by a time-axis, the being
will still not be able to observe all points in the universe since
information takes time to travel.

cnc:
>Besides, there is no reason to assume the existence of additional
>dimensions of space or time unless there is some way for us to interact
>with them.  The dimensions that we know of seem to have a great deal of
>interaction between them.  Seeing no evidence for interaction with
>extra dimensions, I have to assume they do not exist.

weaver:
>Basically I agree with you here. I have no evidence for the existence
>of additional dimensions of space and time. However, I think it is
>interesting that the Bible, which claims it's God is omniscient and 
>omnipresent, also strongly implies the existence of these extra space 
>and time dimensions which make it a possibility. 

We shouldn't bring the bible into it.
Who knows what the original writers meant when they claimed
omniscience.  By the standards of 2 millenia ago, today's state-of-
the-art military might be considered omniscient with their satellite
imaging, high-altitude surveilance, AWACS planes, etc..
If you loosen the definition sufficently, sure, "omniscience" is possible.
I still think that omniscience in the strict sense of the definition
is impossible.  

cheers,
Chris

--
|  Christopher  |  Computer Engineering graduate student, UC Irvine  |
|  Christensen  |  cnc@balboa.eng.uci.edu                            |
Newsgroups: alt.ensign.wesley.die.die.die,rec.arts.startrek.current,talk.bizarre