|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why omnipotent is a paradox. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
TechnoCore Inactive Member |
(1) A system cannot completly be described within the system itself.
(2) Lets say a "God" does not belong to our system. (The universe)Then that God cannot know anything at all about our system, because that requires information exchange. If such exchange were to occure, they would be of the same system, and (1) applies. Hence an omnipotent beeing is a paradox, and is an impossible state of existance, in any system. //Technocore
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
This sounds sensible but it's too simple and makes assumptions about things that are, by definition, outside what we can know about.
It sure isn't going to convince any believer. For one reason it's too abstract and much better logic with much better evidence doesn't convince them of anything. Lot's of luck.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TechnoCore Inactive Member |
Well maybe its abstract... but it applies to all.
As far as i know it has been matimatically proven that you cannot completly describe a system within a system. It just makes the word "omnipotent" meaningless. it's a no-state I know it won't convice a beliver, since believers are just that. People who choose to belive instead of using reason. no matter what.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But doesn't your logic prove that reason cannot be exhaustive? That there must exist things in the universe beyond reason?
As you say, a system cannot be fully described within itself. But what is reason but an attempt to understand the system of reality? Ergo, reason can never fully succeed. Now, the problem for me is, I don't know how to know anything beyond reason. Maybe that's a property of humanity; maybe that's just me. Personally I don't think there's a another way to know something beyond reason. Certainly not a better way, as far as I know. Therefore, what can't be known by reason can't be known. So why bother with it? That's how I solve that problem. Your milage may vary.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
been matimatically proven that you cannot completly describe a system within a system. That proof is very specific to mathematical systems with specific properties (Rrhein can give you all the details (perhaps more than) you want. I don't think there is anyway you can justify carrying it over into other areas. So it isn't a valid basis for this "mathematical" proof.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
What if the universe is a sub-system of God?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TechnoCore Inactive Member |
Yes and no. It depends what is exactly meant by "reason" here.
And "beyond reason" is maybe not the correct phrase to use, a better phrase whould be "in reach of reason". Of course there exists things "unreachable by reason" for the moment, and that is why scinece will forever have new things to uncover. My logic only stated that there was one thing unreachable by reason. And that was the total sum of all possible states of the system, i.e perfect knowledge of the system.Parts of the system could be nearly fully understood. You say that reason can never fully succed. That might true if you speak of it in the specific. Reason is the reciepe for how to aquire knowledge. The optimum way to use reason varies with the problem encountered when talking about it in the specific. When talking about reason in general, reason always succeds, since it is per defenition the best way to solve something. Im tired now... need sleep..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TechnoCore Inactive Member |
I suspected that.
But what i wrote applies to all as far as i can see. If you have a completly filled harddisk, and you wants to store a perfect description of what is stored on that harddrive, on excatly that harddrive, how would you do it? It can't be done. Try zip it. But hey! now you changed the information on the harddrive, and it nolonger matches what you started with. It goes on forever.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TechnoCore Inactive Member |
Peter asked: "What if the universe is a sub-system of God?"
Either we belong to the same system, or we are separate systems.If there is to be ANY information-exchange between the systems, they become the same system. And looking at the logic in the first mail: nothing can be omnipotent within a system.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
But a sub-system (ie. a component of a wider system)
can be comnpletely controlled/manipulated by a system at a higher level within the hierarchy. Information exchange between systems does not make themaprt of the same system either ... although that of course depends on how you define your boundaries. All systems can be viewed as a sub-system serving a highersystem's design intent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TechnoCore Inactive Member |
You are wrong. Any kind of information exchange does make them the same system. Be it matter or energy. Anything that sneeks between two systems joins them into one system.
And you cannot completly control your subsystem the moment you interact with it. See since you cannot completly control your own system, and the subsystem and your system becomes merged.You can get close, but never 100% control.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Cresswell Inactive Member |
quote:Erm, excuse me? That seems to exclude the very large number of people who believe and use reason.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mike Holland Member (Idle past 512 days) Posts: 179 From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia Joined: |
I think you guys are slightly off course here.
Godel's theorem states that a mathematical or logical system is incomplete because it cannot describe itself fully. But you CAN develop a meta-system to describe it fully. Only snag is, you then need a meta-meta-system to describe the meta-system fully. So, if you want God to describe (undrerstand) the universe, then you need MetaGod to describe God, and then MetaMetaGod, etc. Mike.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Gzus Inactive Member |
Thus by Technocore's logic
quote: you have logically deduced the need for a 'metasystem'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What if "omnipotent" is not defined as "knowing everything" but rather "knowing all that can be known"?
Ultimate description of the universe may very well be impossible. But the possibility of a being that knows all that can be known about the universe is not logically inconsistent. I'm not saying there's a god; just saying that to come to the conclusion that there isn't one isn't a matter of funny logic; all you have to do is observe the world we live in.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024