Can mankind achieve omniscience?

Can mankind achieve omniscience?

I believe we can.

I believe the only reason we have not achieved all-knowing is because the majority of mankind does not believe it is possible. This way of thinking does not inspire the masses, hence very little effort has been expended towards this lofty goal.

I believe the proliferation of religious ideas, dogma, and doctrines, which for the most part have preconceived conclusion, stifles the advancement of intellect.

May truth prevail

Cybrseer

Hm...

Well, this is where the idea of relative truth comes in. Truth can be altered depending on perception, conception, point of view...but then, is that really truth? How can we know which interpretation is the real truth?

Does there exist an absolute truth; an "objective reality", as Einstein put it? If so, can we ever touch on it? Can our discovered "truth" be that absolute truth? Could it be that we really can find it, but would percieve it differently? Are there many truths? Or is there one truth?

If there are many truths for one concept, are they, then, really truths?

Sometimes, I think of it like literature. Consider a class of students all reading the same piece of work. Literature isn't straight-forward; it's meanings aren't obvious, therefore we must rely on our intellect to decipher it's true meaning...but how do we know we've come to meet the truth of it? The author had his own ideas while he wrote whatever he did(let's say he's dead, in this example).

The writing can be interpreted in different ways. Many readers have the ability to analyze a piece of work and give it an entirely different, yet valid, meaning, based on their interpretations of the work. Maybe they choose to make different interpretations of it for recreation. One can prove an extremely absurd idea to be true, in a sense. This goes for many different kinds of ideas.

So while we can determine the truth of things, how do we know it's the right truth, or if it's even truth at all?

That is my conflict with omniscience. We don't know what created the universe, if anything at all, but we know it wasn't us. Our knowledge is based entirely upon on our world and intelligence. What if there is an advanced intelligence unimaginable by us? Perhaps another life-form somewhere in outer space. Perhaps a creator? The point is, we're reading the story. We didn't write it, and we don't know where the author is, if any.

I hope that was understandable...Sometimes my thoughts aren't very well articulated, or expressed.

reply to post by Kyuubi


I would like to start with the end of your post as this would seem a more appropriate beginning to the conversation. (pardon the word play see below) and then address your other thoughts.

We don't know what created the universe, if anything at all, but we know it wasn't us

Mankind is part of the universe.
Our fabric is consistent with the universe.

We are morbidly preoccupied with that which is outside of our physical shell. Always looking to the stars or under a rock rather than discerning the mysteries inside our being. Until one masters oneself how can we begin to comprehend the mysteries without.

Following is a quote by Albert Einstein:

“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”

Mankind always seems to 'put the cart before the horse'. Mistakenly starting at the end rather than the beginning.

The beginning is within.
The ending is without.

Cybrseer



[edit on 18-2-2008 by cybrseer]

reply to post by Kyuubi

Truth can be altered depending on perception, conception, point of view...but then, is that really truth? How can we know which interpretation is the real truth?

I disagree.

Perceptions of truth can be inaccurate.
Truth can be hidden.
Truth can be misinterpreted.
Truth cannot be altered if it is truth.
Truth can be expanded upon.
Truth can supercede Truth

I firmly believe that truths exist for all things on all levels of existence with equal understanding by all.

These truths I call 'Universal Truths'.

For the record. I did not coin the term 'Universal Truth', and it has been a wideley discussed topic of philosophy for ages.

Example:

A feast with all manner of delicacies laid before a disparate throng of starving people. Whether or not they can communicate with each other they all have the knowledge and understanding of that which lays before them.

This example is what I would term a 'Universal Truth' at this level of existence. I believe that at every level of existence Universal Truths are readily available for mankinds knowledge and understanding.

Cybrseer


[edit on 18-2-2008 by cybrseer]

reply to post by cybrseer


Interesting thought...I am IN agreement. However, I believe their are certain social obstacles which must be overcome before we can achieve this unified consciousness. Namely religion...I'm sure that sounds awfully accusatory, but iimho these institutions actually hinder the development of this innate human capacity; tendency by denying and often times maligning its pursuit.

SO the answer is 'YES' we will...The real question might be how?

reply to post by Wandering_Star

I believe their are certain social obstacles which must be overcome before we can achieve this unified consciousness.

I in turn agree. One major debilitating obstacle is mankinds propensity to acquiesce. Believing that conformity or consensus equals truth. Where I believe that truth brings 'unified consciousness'.

Great word choice. 'unified consciousness' has a nice sound to it. Pardon me, I digress.

Namely religion...I'm sure that sounds awfully accusatory, but iimho these institutions actually hinder the development of this innate human capacity; tendency by denying and often times maligning its pursuit.

Imagine the last six thousand years if we had used a scientific model.
One of the greatest expansions of human intellect was the direct result of the Bubonic plague from 1347 to 1351; after which many lost faith in their God or Gods and sought other means of understanding and enlightenment.

SO the answer is 'YES' we will...The real question might be how?

Yes. How?.

I think the first step is to expunge the paralysis of inconceivability.

Cybrseer

" namely religion "

And you will like antichrist then, as he wil join all religions into one and destroy us Christians...

The bottom line is, God knows all, not us, we are created, and only pride has this mindset..

I dont want to know everthing, im not God, God is God and he hasa reveaeld truth which is accompanied by 2000 years of miracles.......

Have you even given the thought of a revealed truth by God himself? Why is it so impossible that God would come to earth and talk to his creatures and form a revealed truth..

We accept from his miracles and teachings, but also out of humility...

and you see scientists had your mindset, and look what they are creating..

Nuclear wqeapons which the saints say will cause WW3 and wipe us all out, all because they want more knowledge, more, more, and satan will give it to them since he is the smartest angel I think God made.

peace.

reply to post by cybrseer


No, I don't think so. At least not naturally.

Of course, there are levels. If I'd take the 'omniscience' to mean 'knowing everything', then, taking the physics example of omniscience:

This would mean that we know the properties of each and every particle in the universe (or enough 'groups' of particles to assume we know them all).
If we take the Newtonian laws, then we can omnisciently know that this particle will go there, and cause this effect, and that particle would go here and cause that effect, etc.

But then we come to the realisation that Newtonian Physics is not the ultimate reality. We go deeper in, we have atomic physics, quantam physics, etc. It is my belief that for every level that we go deeper, a new level will appear. In fact, I'd say that every single 'discovery' comes in an infinite number of levels. While we may gain mastery over any one level, we will always discover that there are newer levels underneath that.

Another example (if physics was too technical for you ) is history. How can we possibly know all the history of all the world? We can't, unless we have a time machine (and that is another thing I don't really believe is possible, no matter how appealling I find it).


What form of omniscience were you referring to?

reply to post by JesusisTruth


Your comments clearly show some of the difficulties and seemingly insurmountable obstacles in the search, discovery, and understanding of truth. You state your belief in God and attribute all things to him. I do not believe in God and attribute nothing to him.

This leaves us with the following.

We are both right.
We are both wrong.
You are right.
I am wrong.
Either one of us could be partially right. (polytheism).
I am sure I have left out a few other possibilities.

I believe there is Universal Truth.
I believe we are looking in the wrong place.
I believe one of the main reasons so many look to a God is that mankind is inherently lazy, it's just to much work to figure things out, so we put the burden on someone or something else.

When I ponder the existence of all the things within my present awareness, I find nothing more magnificent than mankind; a rock, a tree, a star, although impressive, in no way do these compare to the living human being. I am therefore compelled to start my search for truth within this most remarkable vessel.

The beginning is within
The end is without

May truth prevail

Cybrseer


[edit on 19-2-2008 by cybrseer]

reply to post by babloyi

No, I don't think so. At least not naturally.

If not naturally then by what means?

In fact, I'd say that every single 'discovery' comes in an infinite number of levels. While we may gain mastery over any one level, we will always discover that there are newer levels underneath that.

I think there is unlimited permutations or combinations, hence, creation without end, but that most if not all things can be traced to a finite quintessence.

(if physics was too technical for you)

Oh, it burns!, it burns!
I always appreciate a healthy sense of humor.

How can we possibly know all the history of all the world?

I believe we can know 'all the history of all the world'.
I believe that all knowledge of all things resides within each and every person and that we must first unravel the convoluted mechanism's within our own habitat before we will be able to realize its 'Universal Truth'.

What form of omniscience were you referring to?

I am using the word 'omniscience' Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary.

1. the quality or state of being omniscient.
2. infinite knowledge.

I intentionally refrain from capitalizing the first letter of 'omniscience' as that is often used to infer relevance to God. (Although I may have inadvertently capitalized it somewhere by mistake).

I am instinctively repelled by any notion that mankind is limited.
My imagination seems unlimited. The Universe seems unlimited.
I can evidence no reason to assign limits to mankind.

Cybrseer












[edit on 19-2-2008 by cybrseer]

reply to post by cybrseer

Originally posted by cybrseer
If not naturally then by what means?

The muslims have a Prophet/Saint known as Al-Khidr (sometimes taken to be St. George), who was blessed by God with knowledge (as well as a prolonged life). He is said to have assisted Moses, and Alexander the Great(?), and is said to help those who have gotten lost. I very much like the idea- it's quite a romantic concept.

Originally posted by cybrseer
I believe we can know 'all the history of all the world'.
I believe that all knowledge of all things resides within each and every person and that we must first unravel the convoluted mechanism's within our own habitat before we will be able to realize its 'Universal Truth'.

While there is something in what you say about knowledge of all things lying dormant inside us (whenever I learnt something new in school, it felt like I was just 'remembering' something I had always known, and that piece of knowledge 'fit in' with everything else in a very pleasing way), I wouldn't think that all knowledge of all history lies within each of us. There is much we cannot ever know about: the name of the poor woman some 3000 years ago, who spent her life doing nothing more than making clothes, for example.

Originally posted by cybrseerI am instinctively repelled by any notion that mankind is limited.
My imagination seems unlimited. The Universe seems unlimited.
I can evidence no reason to assign limits to mankind.

There may be no limits to mankind's capabilities, but if there are also no limits to the universe, than we will forever be playing a game of run and catch with it. We may catch up with it at one point sometimes, but then after a bit it will run ahead again. Again, this is my belief.

[edit on 19-2-2008 by babloyi]

Are we speaking of omniscience in the "no boundry" viewpoint?
As in everything about everything?
In this sense I feel that no...man cannot achieve this with flesh and brain alone.
example,"Tom what is the 2nd word in the 289th sentence in the book 'Of Mice And Men?"
or
"Dave how many pores did sally have on the lower 50% of her face?"
TOTAL omniscience can't be achieved by man in my opinion.By NO means will I ever be able to dissprove this stance one way or the other.It is personal opinion.

Now,"Situational omniscience" is a different story.I made this phrase up and what it means is "all knowledge in a certain field"

for instance...an athletic historian(I dont think they have them,but we'll continue with this fictional character) would have "Situational omniscience" with the question 'how many FIELD GOAL KICKERS did the 1998 Chicago Bears have?'
The obvious,all knowing answer would be something like 3( I actually have no clue) but you see what I mean.

So the athletic historian has a "situtational omniscience of football".He has all knowledge in this field.

No pun intended.

reply to post by babloyi

There is much we cannot ever know about: the name of the poor woman some 3000 years ago, who spent her life doing nothing more than making clothes, for example.

Perhaps, still, I am compelled to achieve this eventuality.

Oh, and by the way the name of the woman is امرأة يجعل الملابس.
I do enjoy humor, don't worry, I will administer some restraint.

There may be no limits to mankind's capabilities, but if there are also no limits to the universe, than we will forever be playing a game of run and catch with it. We may catch up with it at one point sometimes, but then after a bit it will run ahead again. Again, this is my belief.

Allow me to expand. I briefly alluded to that in a previous post which is as follows.

I think there is unlimited permutations or combinations, hence, creation without end, but that most if not all things can be traced to a finite quintessence.

What I am suggesting by 'finite quintessence' is a belief that there is a set of building blocks that are finite. Once these building blocks are realized in their absolute purest and original form, then mankind can permutate and combine these building blocks to understand how every thing came to be and to create new things. Once again in brief, it is my thinking that all history is imprinted upon the fabric of the universe.

Cybrseer


[edit on 19-2-2008 by cybrseer]

reply to post by Austin9599945

Are we speaking of omniscience in the "no boundry" viewpoint? As in everything about everything?

Yes.

In this sense I feel that no...man cannot achieve this with flesh and brain alone. example,"Tom what is the 2nd word in the 289th sentence in the book 'Of Mice And Men?" or"Dave how many pores did sally have on the lower 50% of her face?"

I think that everything that has ever happened is written upon the fabric of the universe, and as well has been imprinted within our being.

TOTAL omniscience can't be achieved by man in my opinion.By NO means will I ever be able to dissprove this stance one way or the other.It is personal opinion.

I certainly will that to be untrue.

Now,"Situational omniscience" is a different story. I made this phrase up and what it means is "all knowledge in a certain field"

Interesting. Yes, 'Situational omniscience' as you define it certainly seems to fit quite well into a theory pursuing omniscience.

So the athletic historian has a "situtational omniscience of football".He has all knowledge in this field.

No pun intended.

I wonder if he ever played in the Unified Field, Theory has it that the score was the square root of negative one, but that is only because someone fractaled their paradigm.

Yes! Yes! I know, temperance. How I enjoy word play.

Cybrseer

Originally posted by cybrseer
Oh, and by the way the name of the woman is امرأة يجعل الملابس.
I do enjoy humor, don't worry, I will administer some restraint.

Ha! Not being a native speaker, it took me almost a minute to read through that. Didn't realise they spoke arabic 3000 years ago.

Originally posted by cybrseer
What I am suggesting by 'finite quintessence' is a belief that there is a set of building blocks that are finite. Once these building blocks are realized in their absolute purest and original form, then mankind can permutate and combine these building blocks to understand how every thing came to be and to create new things.

This refers to my previous point. We may obtain all the 'building blocks' of Newtonian Physics, and they would work perfectly well with the universe as we know it, and we would be able to achieve 'omniscience' as far as the Newtonian concept of the universe would go. However, after doing all this, we realise that the building blocks can be further divided into smaller building blocks, creating a new understanding of the universe, which we can then use to achieve omniscience as far as that is concerned. That is, until those building blocks are found to be even further divisible, and so on, and so on. It is a game of run and catch- no matter how much work we do, we will always find that the building blocks can be further divided.

[edit on 19-2-2008 by babloyi]

reply to post by cybrseer


There is still much I have to learn about truth and knowledge. I've been dwelling on this area of philosophy for most of my day, trying to understand a definition of truth, certain kinds of truth, and your 'Universal Truths'.

First, I will say that I really like the Einstein quote. I now understand how imagination has no limitations; it can be the accelerator in getting closer to truth.

But as for starting at the end or the beginning, starting at the end of something doesn't always necessarily mean ineffectiveness. Considering the end(or anything not in the beginning) of a certain phenomenon can provide much insight toward the beginning. Depending on the situation, information can vary from beginning to end. I don't believe the beginning is always the place to start, as logical as it may seem. My understanding of beginning and end is different.

I see us as being part of the end. Considering the history of the universe, we are an insignificant dot towards the 'end result', which is the present. We are very likely part of a long history of development while the stars and space we look to seem to be a reflection of our own galaxy, as we cannot look at our own from an outer perspective. This would be the beginning(or a similar one). The two obviously go hand in hand. Studying the beginning and end can provide answers.

Truth cannot be altered if it is truth.

My question has been answered. No, truth cannot be altered, but we can all agree that it can be misinterpreted, hidden, expanded on, etc. Still, isn't it seemingly variable? One may be able to wrongly interpret it to such an extent where evidence may completely support the possibly absurd idea. An interpretation may be so ridiculous, but honestly considerable, depending on how one interprets the rest of the story to back up the idea.

Truth is not relative, I think, but many interpretations can be seen as valid. Of course, truth exists as one. There can only be one truth. So how do we know which interpretation is correct? I'm not sure if we can. I'm not saying it's impossible, but I think it is considerable that we may never know everything.

I understand your ideas of 'Universal Truth'. Your 'Universal Truths' pertain to mankind's understanding and knowledge of some things, just like the example you gave about a universal understanding of the feast laid out on a table. I will agree, though; there may be no limitation on the levels of 'Universal Truths', but that's because these understandings are relative to us.

Consider a similar situation like that of the feast. This time, it is a cow. Everyone, regardless of wether they can communicate, understand what this creature is, as well as it's significance to many. To some, it is a domesticated animal that is breeded and eaten. Much of mankind shares this understanding of the cow. Hindus are exempt from this understanding because they understand that long ago, God existed in the form of a cow, therefore do not eat it for fear that another cow may be God. I don't like to think that religious claims are entirely unreasonable. I believe all understandings should be given consideration.

Will we ever understand real significance of a cow?The truth about it?I don't think so,as long as there are multiple understandings of the creature.Even if mankind has a universal, agreeable understanding of the cow,I have doubts about understanding it's significance,as the understanding of something can be relative to us.

Imagination provides for multiple understandings,usually without limitation, but at the same time might be the cause of our straying from the truth.IMHO,omniscience is highly unlikely.

"Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself,even though you never touch its coattails." -Clarence Darrow.

reply to post by babloyi

Ha! Not being a native speaker, it took me almost a minute to read through that. Didn't realise they spoke arabic 3000 years ago.

Nice! I knew I should have used Sumerian, it has just been so long since I have written or spoke Sumerian, I did not want to misspell, it seems like millennia.

It is a game of run and catch- no matter how much work we do, we will always find that the building blocks can be further divided.

I was thinking somewhat the opposite. That the building blocks, how ever many there may be, cannot be divided, but instead, arranged in different
sequences, to reveal or to create.

האם השפה הזאת מתאימה לך יותר טוב




[edit on 19-2-2008 by cybrseer]

I am affraid that I may be the only one that finds this conspicuous.but give this theory a shot.

What DOES end in the universe?BESIDES life?

Matter cannot be destroyed.
nor can energy.

So the Fabric,the essence,the stuff of the universe never ends.

So the thought that it is by accident that matter AND energy BOTH are eternal is highly unlikely to me.I cannot see how this can be an accident.
So it KINDA appears that anything in the universe is eternal.(to a degree)

We are a part of the universe,and although we can die,while we are living maybe we have the power to have omniscience.

Since there are things that can be infinitely living and powerful.(energy and matter)why should we assume that we are apart(not 'a part',dont get the two confused.I do feel we are 'a part') of this?
If we imagine for now that the human species will live a million more years,can we honestly fathom the thought that one day our capacity for knowledge is at its absolute end?

I Cannot.

that would mean that once you learn something new,then something already obtained in your brain would be pushed out.
that would require a very strange theory that every bit of knowledge has a value!

Example....if you had obtained your highest capacity for knowledge this means that whatever you learn new is going to push something else out.
But not every piece of knowledge is of the same amount.

for example if you have an absolute knowledge of the Titanic(which I like to think =] ) and you try to push into your brain the knowledge of "what is the molar mass of Lithium?"Well obviously your thorough knowledge of the titanic has a much higher 'value' then the simple question the that element.We will give the thorough knowledge of the titanic a value of 50 because it is more in amount.We will give the element question a value of 2 since it is irrelevant and small in amount.With your brain at full capacity,shoving the 2 point value of the element in as new information is going to push a 2 point value out the other end...becaue your brain cannot hold anything else.."therefore it must give something up" so to say.See what I mean.Does anyone else see this as somewhat conspicuous?

I find this to be silly.In the sense that
A)what determines which piece of knowledge is going to lose 2 points?Is it random?If not,what determines who the unlucky 'recipient' of the point loss?lol no pun,since they aren't really receiving but losing rather.
and
B)how can you lose a 2 point value of your mothers name?Surely you must ALWAYS remember certain things.no?

also(if this is true),your brain will go through a teter-tot action.
once you remember something them something else will be pushed out and this could happen very rapidly as you remember and forget many things.

ehhhh I dont know,man.

Also one last thing of different meaning.
maybe its in the WAY we learn which determines how much we CAN learn.
Example..learning the 50 states in alphabetical order can be hard.But add a song and rythm and it becomes much easier.You see what I mean?So maybe every aspect of knowledge requires its own "rythym".Maybe once we have all the rythyms in the universe locked in..then we can know truth.


I dont know guys...Im gonna end it here.I appreciate it dearly to those who may and did read this.(or tried)

CHEERS!






[edit on 20-2-2008 by Austin9599945]

Originally posted by cybrseer
I was thinking somewhat the opposite. That the building blocks, how ever many there may be, cannot be divided, but instead, arranged in different
sequences, to reveal or to create.

But why should we limit ourselves to THESE being the basic building blocks. I want to know what the basic building blocks are made of. They couldn't have come from nothing! Hence I study, and break them down, and the shattering of the 'current' omniscience.
Example: You are saying like using the 26 letter alphabet of english to obtain the entire vocabulary of the english language. I'm saying, where did those english alphabets come from? Then where did that latin alphabet come from? etc, etc, etc.

Originally posted by cybrseer
האם השפה הזאת מתאימה לך יותר טוב

Hahah....wouldn't suit me, I'm even worse at hebrew than at arabic. I guess it fits the time-frame of our 3000 years ago lady, though.

[edit on 20-2-2008 by babloyi]

reply to post by Austin9599945


Very interesting! Considering the idea that the universe is eternal, unlimited, endless, undestroyable, you've come up with these thoughts. I admire. =]

I am affraid that I may be the only one that finds this conspicuous.but give this theory a shot.

What DOES end in the universe?BESIDES life?

Matter cannot be destroyed.
nor can energy.

So the Fabric,the essence,the stuff of the universe never ends.

So the thought that it is by accident that matter AND energy BOTH are eternal is highly unlikely to me.I cannot see how this can be an accident.
So it KINDA appears that anything in the universe is eternal.(to a degree)

Unfortunately, my doubtful side seems to have surfaced.

Consider the evidence that supports the Big Bang theory. The universe is understood to be undergoing expansion. In thinking about the expansion, we can deduce that the universe has a definite, growing figure(if we have interpreted our observations correctly). Infinity does not grow. Infinity is indefinite. I would also like to add that infinity is but a concept, and that I am skeptical about it. Can infinity be real in our universe? I am doubtful.

On a final addition, I am also skeptical about matter and energy being indestructible. I percieve that we believe it is indestructible because we've never been able to destroy it, and we've never seen it destroyed.

Take a look at this . That's just the biggest space void seen. 1 billion light years across. There are many, many more. How does one explain a total absence of matter? According to our radio telescopes, there is none. Of course, it's questionable, but if there really is an absence of matter, as we know it, that could pose problems.

Originally posted by Austin9599945

We are a part of the universe,and although we can die,while we are living maybe we have the power to have omniscience.

Since there are things that can be infinitely living and powerful.(energy and matter)why should we assume that we are apart(not 'a part',dont get the two confused.I do feel we are 'a part') of this?
If we imagine for now that the human species will live a million more years,can we honestly fathom the thought that one day our capacity for knowledge is at its absolute end?

I Cannot.
[edit on 20-2-2008 by Austin9599945]

I agree.

I also would not be able to imagine knowledge reaching an absolute end. What you're implying is that there's always something to learn, correct? If that's true, then how can we honestly achieve INFINITE knowledge? Wouldn't that include knowledge of the future in addition to the past and the present? Clairvoyance, even.

So, from a certain point of view, I sense that omniscience cannot be attained because things are always happening. For mankind to keep up with it all, we would have to be omnipresent, clairvoyant, foresightful, or all three. I'm sure we all see that those ideas are highly unlikely, and even then, I have doubts about equal opportunity in those supernatural traits.

Omniscience would never mean an absolute end. I think that if omniscience was ever achieved, it would hold true to it's meaning: infinite knowledge. Honestly, I'm leaning towards impossibility, as of now.

[edit on 20-2-2008 by Kyuubi]