= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Absolute Authority - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (72)
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]
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.