Omniscience
From Free net encyclopedia
Omniscience is the capacity to know everything, or at least everything that can be known about a character/s including thoughts, feelings, etc. In monotheism, this ability is typically attributed to God.
The concept of omniscience can be defined formally as follows:
- x is omniscient =def <math>\forall p(p \Rightarrow Kxp)</math>
In words:
- x is omniscient =def For all propositions p: if p (is true), then x knows that p (is true)
If "to know everything" is taken to mean "to know everything logically knowable", then the definition above needs to be qualified as follows:
- x is omniscient =def <math>\forall p((p \land \Diamond Kp) \Rightarrow Kxp)</math>
In words:
- x is omniscient =def For all propositions p: if p (is true) and p is (logically) knowable, then x knows that p (is true)
The latter definition is necessary, because there are logically true but logically unknowable propositions such as "Nobody knows that this sentence is true":
- N = "Nobody knows that N is true"
If N is true, then nobody knows that N is true; and if N is false, then it is not the case that nobody knows that N is true, which means that somebody knows that N is true. And if somebody knows that N is true, then N ist true; therefore, N is true in any case. But if N is true in any case, then it (= "Nobody knows that this sentence is true") is logically true and nobody knows it. What is more, the logically true N is not only not known to be true but also impossibly known to be true, for what is logically true is impossibly false. Sentence N is a logical counter-example to the unqualified definition of "omniscience", but it does not undermine the qualified one.
Nontheists often claim that the very concept of omniscience is inherently contradictory, but the qualified definition does appear consistent in itself, even though it might turn out to contradict other theistic doctrines such as the doctrine of (libertarian) free will.
It should be added that the above definitions cover what is called propositional knowledge (knowing that), as opposed to experiential knowledge (knowing how). That somebody is omniscient in the sense of possessing all possible propositional knowledge does not imply that she also possesses all possible experiential knowledge. Opinions differ as to whether the propositionally omniscient god of the theists is able to possess all experiential knowledge as well. But it seems at least doubtful that a divine person conceived of as infinite and necessary can really know how e.g. being a finite person and dying feels like.
A related but distinct ability is omnipotence. Omniscience is sometimes understood to also imply the capacity to know everything that will be.
Foreknowledge and its compatibility with free will has been a debated topic by theists and philosophers. The argument that divine foreknowledge is not compatible with free will is known as theological fatalism. If man is truly free to choose between different alternatives, it is very difficult to understand how God could know in advance which way he will choose. Various responses have been proposed (under the assumption that God exists, and is omniscient):
- God can know in advance what I will do, because free will is to be understood only as freedom from coercion, and anything further is an illusion.
- God can know in advance what I will do, even though free will in the fullest sense of the phrase does exist. God somehow has a "middle knowledge" - that is, knowledge of how free agents will act in any given circumstances.
- It is not possible for a god to know the result of a free human choice. Omniscience should therefore be interpreted to mean "knowledge of everything that can be known". God can know what someone will do, but only by predetermining it; thus, he chooses the extent of human freedom by choosing what (if anything) to know in this way.
- God stands outside time, and therefore can know everything free agents do, since he does not know these facts "in advance". The free agent's future actions therefore remain continent to himself and others in linear time but are logically necessary to God on account of his infallibly accurate all-encompassing view. This was the solution offered by Thomas Aquinas.
- Instead of producing a parallel model in God's own infallible mind of the future contingent actions of a free agent (thus supressing the agent's free will), God encodes his knowledge of the agent's actions in the original action itself.
Omniscience is also studied in game theory, where it is not necessarily an advantageous quality if one's omniscience is a published fact. For example, in the game of chicken: two people each drive a car towards the other. The first to swerve to avoid a collision loses. In such a game, the optimal outcome is to have your opponent swerve. The worst outcome is when nobody swerves. But if A knows that B is in fact omniscient, then A will simply decide to never swerve since A knows B will know A's logical decision and B will be forced to swerve to avoid a collision — this is assuming each player is logical and follows optimal strategy.
Omniscience is also used in the field of literary analysis and criticism, referring to the point of view of the narrator. An omniscient narrator is almost always a third-person narrator, capable of revealing insights into characters and settings that would not be otherwise apparent from the events of the story and which no single character could be aware of.