5 Answers

  1. It seems to me that the thought experiment you have set up does not exclude the possibility of the existence of such a creature, since it does not deprive it of the possibility of lying. Let's assume that our being is telling the absolute truth. Then why wouldn't the person to whom the message was addressed actually die? After all, there are many interesting ways to lose your life, the probability of insurance against which tends to zero.

  2. An omniscient being knows not just the time of death, but a function of the time of death, depending on what it tells the person. An omniscient being will be able to give the correct answer to this question if this function has a fixed point, that is, the person will die exactly when it is said and precisely because the creature told him so. This will lead to a paradox often found in literature (appointment in Samarra, Idris Shah's parable about the angel of death in Samarkand), where a person flees from one city, having learned about his fate, to die exactly where it is predicted. If a function doesn't have a fixed point, meaning that whatever the creature says, it can't be right, it doesn't mean that the creature is somehow corrupted. A creature simply cannot pass on its true knowledge honestly. This is a paradox, not of a being, but of knowledge, which ceases to be such when it is transmitted.

  3. Yes. An omniscient being in this formulation is impossible. Note that it must know something that hasn't happened yet. Something that doesn't exist. How can you know something that isn't there? This is a logical error.

    A real omniscient being is one who knows everything that exists, everything that is, and not what is not. At the same time, it can guess future events with a very high probability. With a fantastic, in human opinion, probability. This is possible because an omniscient being knows with absolute accuracy the trends of all phenomena, the trajectories of all objects, and the thoughts of all people (but only in the present tense, not in the future).

    Conclusion: If an omniscient being made a forecast for the future, then this event would occur with the greater probability, the closer the future was predicted. I think that such a forecast for an event that should occur within such a short period of time for the Universe as 100 years will come true with such fantastic accuracy that, in most cases, you will not be able to distinguish the amount of error of such a forecast. Although, there will always be a margin of error.

  4. I see three options:
    1) Full determinism, that is, an omniscient being knows everything, including the fact that it tells a person how and when he will die, but can do nothing, since everything is strictly conditioned. At the same time, a person is also rigidly conditioned, all his attempts to avoid death are recorded in this line of events and lead precisely to the predicted death.
    2) Determinism with the free will of an omniscient being: it can inform a person about death in such a way that the subsequent chain of events exactly known to this creature will inevitably lead to the death of the person at the appointed time. Or it may not report it. Non-communication will lead to the development of another chain of equally deterministic events from this point of non-communication, but possibly with a different outcome. That is, the only influencing will is the will of an omniscient being, which by its actions can determine the course of events, and it knows in advance all the consequences of one or another of its actions, since they are rigidly fixed in a deterministic line of events, just these lines are not one, but many.
    3. Causality without complete determinism. In this variant, “omniscience” means not knowing the future (there is no future yet), but knowing all the existing conditions and their potential impact on the course of events. In this world, an omniscient being can tell a person about some likely outcomes for him, at the same time informing the probability of this or that outcome and the factors that determine this probability (including the information that the person is currently receiving).

  5. Look. An omniscient being can answer the date of death of a person, given that that person does not yet know about his date of death. As soon as the person finds out, the information will change. But an omniscient being will not need to be told the updated information. We live in a dynamic world, and as the book “Theoretical Minimum” says: “The task of classical mechanics is to predict the future. The great eighteenth-century physicist Pierre-Simon Laplace expressed this in a famous quote:

    The state of the universe at a given moment can be considered as a consequence of its past and as the cause of its future. A thinking being who, at a given moment, knew all the moving forces of nature and all the positions of all the objects that make up the world, could— if his mind were large enough to analyze all these data-express the motion of the largest bodies in the universe and the smallest atoms in one equation; for such an intelligence there would be no uncertainty and the future”

    Of course, such a powerful computational mechanism is impossible due to the infinity of variables in the universe, but in theory, physics does not deny the possibility of such a mechanism.

Leave a Reply