HonoreDB comments on Absolute Authority - Less Wrong

44 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 08 January 2008 03:33AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (72)

Sort By: Old

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: bigjeff5 03 March 2011 10:55:30PM *  0 points [-]

I'm curious why this was voted down. If it was because my language was a little harsh, I assure you I did not mean to offend, I simply meant he made a mistake in the wording of the argument - omniscient means "all-knowing", omnipotent means "all-powerful". I'd be surprised to be voted down even though I was right on this matter.

If there is a problem with my reasoning after that, please do point it out to me rather than just voting me down. I'm new to Bayes, and as the Amanda Knox Test demonstrated, I often fail at reasoning. If this is such a case I would very much like to know about it. I can't see where I made the mistake though.

[Edit to change the Amanda Knox link to the original, instead of the spoiler]

Comment author: HonoreDB 04 March 2011 01:38:17AM 0 points [-]

Are omnipotence and omniscience logically distinct? One can "know how to do something" or "be able to learn something."

Comment author: CuSithBell 04 March 2011 02:10:34AM 0 points [-]

Under most conceptions, omnipotence certainly entails at least the ability to become omniscient. It doesn't work the other way - knowing how to shoot a three-point shot in basketball doesn't help an omniscient cantaloupe.

Comment author: HonoreDB 04 March 2011 03:11:15AM 0 points [-]

You don't think it could think its way out of the box? Is causally discrete omniscience really omniscience?

Comment author: bigjeff5 04 March 2011 04:49:13AM 1 point [-]

If you are going to take the premise that information is the substance and causation of all that exists, then yes, an omniscient being must also be omnipotent. You need that premise first, though, or the omniscient is simply a know-it-all (literally). If no condition exists to change its lack of omnipotence given its current abilities, then no amount of knowledge will allow it to become omnipotent.

Omnipotence does not necessarily imply the knowledge necessary to create omniscience, either. The ability is certainly there, but the knowledge may not be. I'm sure if the omnipotent being were clever it could figure out a way to make it happen, though.

Usually when someone dreams up an all powerful being, they make it all knowing as a matter of course, and vice versa. At least they do these days, anyway. The Greeks liked their gods to have serious flaws, and I can appreciate that.

Comment author: wedrifid 04 March 2011 07:00:18AM 0 points [-]

Are omnipotence and omniscience logically distinct? One can "know how to do something" or "be able to learn something."

Yes, they are distinct. One can "know it is impossible to do something", for example.