Omniscience: A thought experiment

[vorlon13]

While not infinite, a complete description of our universe would be large.

[The Grand Nudger]

Any being omniscient within this universe knows enough, for me....to extend that designation, sure.  Anything we have to say on the matter can only be trusted within the context of this universe (as that's as far as we can reasonably extend trust in logic to begin with)....so, if we have to step outside of it for an objection - I'd call that no objection at all.  

[vorlon13]

A database recording all possible answers to all possible questions would be a weird thing.

Descriptions of the actual subatomic particles making up the storage media would need to be recorded upon that media, and the changes to the media from that recording would need to be noted too.

And on and on and on and on.



Hmmm.



I think I've just proven the database impossible.

So we are left with the algorithm idea.

[The Grand Nudger]

-An algorithm capable of all function for all inputs.  Imagine what it would take to execute something like that, eh? At the very least...I'd say that any algorithm capable, with access to those resources, would be bound by knowledge -in time- at the very least. It could not output -all- of it's functions within the present. So while it may be able to answer any question...it may not be able to return a correct answer before, over the course of time...the correct answer changes. Man...I made a post about a machine implementation of something like that.....wish I could find it..think you'd get a kick out of it.

-something along the lines of building a machine to answer one specific question....what is the current temperature of some region of space on the "opposite" side of the universe. By time it returned...could we trust even that single function?

[robvalue]

Just as an aside, given an infinite amount of memory, it's still not possible to write a list of all the real numbers between 0 and 1. There are uncountably many.

Don't know if that factors in to us kicking god's ass

[vorlon13]

-An algorithm capable of all function for all inputs.  Imagine what it would take to execute something like that, eh? At the very least...I'd say that any algorithm capable, with access to those resources, would be bound by knowledge -in time- at the very least. It could not output -all- of it's functions within the present. So while it may be able to answer any question...it may not be able to return a correct answer before, over the course of time...the correct answer changes. Man...I made a post about a machine implementation of something like that.....wish I could find it..think you'd get a kick out of it.

-something along the lines of building a machine to answer one specific question....what is the current temperature of some region of space on the "opposite" side of the universe.  By time it returned...could we trust even that single function?

I already know Microsoft will never write the code for this.

[Anomalocaris]

While not infinite, a complete description of our universe would be large.

I am not sure if we know enough to say that is true.

Modern physics suggests with relative small amount of information (compare to all the obtainable information there is) it is possible to derive an algorithm such that, with input of another relative small amount of information, it is possible to deduce a vastly larger body of information.

Of course with the current state of the algorithm the body of information that can be derived is not anything close to a complete description of the universe. But if the trend holds, it seems to me it is entirely plausible that eventually it would be found that a complete description of the universe requires only a small amount of data embodied in a algorithm and an input.

[The Grand Nudger]

It would probably be easier to create that algorithm than it would be to implement it.  How sad would that be, eh?  Knowing that you could answer any question asked....if only could arrange for implementation.  Our heads wouldn't work (without miraculous compression)...we get what, 50-60 bits of data per second?  

[Anomalocaris]

I guess an overlooked attribute of omniscience would be responsiveness. An omniscient being might require a billion years to come up with any answer, but that can be the answer to any question, or it may take a second, or a microsecond. Omniscience seems to be a very sloppily defined concept. If a billion years is satisfactory, then the human race, or its descendant a billion year hence, could conceivably be omniscient.

[robvalue]

Yeah, it is a stupidly defined concept. It's a lazy attempt to try and make something sound more impressive without any thought as to how ridiculous it is.

The nearest thing to "omniscience" in my opinion is the universe itself. It "knows" what to do, instantly, all the time, no matter what happens. It's there doing its thing. This is rather metaphorical though.

Just like omnipotence, you can never demonstrate you have this quality to me. I have to take your word for it. Or rather, I have to take someone else's word for it that you exist, and also are omniscient. Erm... no.