Timeline for Is an omniscient entity self-refuting?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
38 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 1 at 7:00 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Jun 22 at 1:49 | comment | added | 8Mad0Manc8 | Qualia can only be replicated if you replicate the condition that reportedly qualia exist under, its a matter configuration. I experience qualia such as sound and colour. A machine may only experience degrees of gray but howver would interpret this experience to be simular to a human experiences of sound and colour. That's the question can machines experience qualia and is physicalism true, or is it something that physicalism alone can not describe and qualia is not quantifiable. | |
| Jun 21 at 21:05 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| S Oct 8, 2023 at 11:53 | history | edited | Siddharth Chakravarty | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Removed redundant tags, added tags related to each of the three examples.
|
| S Oct 8, 2023 at 11:53 | history | suggested | Hokon |
Removed redundant tags, added tags related to each of the three examples.
|
|
| Oct 8, 2023 at 1:05 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Oct 8, 2023 at 11:53 | |||||
| Oct 7, 2023 at 23:26 | answer | added | Hokon | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 7, 2023 at 15:53 | answer | added | DKing | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 7, 2023 at 12:00 | review | Close votes | |||
| Oct 15, 2023 at 3:03 | |||||
| Oct 7, 2023 at 10:38 | answer | added | Dheeraj Verma | timeline score: 0 | |
| Oct 7, 2023 at 7:51 | history | edited | Siddharth Chakravarty | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 130 characters in body
|
| Aug 4, 2023 at 4:05 | history | bumped | CommunityBot | This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed. | |
| Jul 5, 2023 at 3:45 | history | edited | Siddharth Chakravarty | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 206 characters in body
|
| Jul 5, 2023 at 3:34 | history | edited | Siddharth Chakravarty | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added clarity for the qualia, and last sentence
|
| Jun 9, 2023 at 6:46 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jun 14, 2023 at 3:05 | |||||
| Jun 8, 2023 at 17:20 | answer | added | blakkwater | timeline score: -1 | |
| Jun 8, 2023 at 17:12 | comment | added | Siddharth Chakravarty | @JD My argument isn't just based or rather restricted to physicalism, it spans beyond that. The first thought experiment I presented is not limited to physicalist perspectives but encompasses various possibilities and interpretations. Also some part of the argument goes kind of towards concepts like qualia, which touches upon broader philosophical topics. The arguments goes at an epistemological extreme. | |
| Jun 8, 2023 at 16:50 | comment | added | J D | Thus, 'Is an omniscient being self-refuting within physicalism' is a much narrower question than 'Is an omniscience impossible?' You seem to have physicalist presumptions built into your question. I'm just raising awareness that many might disagree with your metaphysical presumptions. | |
| Jun 8, 2023 at 16:47 | comment | added | J D | If you say, an omniscient being is impossible, a theologian merely points to the Bible, and says, the Bible is evidence God is omniscient because a theologian makes certain presumptions on how to reason and what constitutes evidence, especially for a fideist. An atheist may have an entirely different standard rooted in physicalism and by prioritizing empirical argumentation. But both of them might agree that the claim 'I know no knowledge is possible' is prima facie self-refuting. 'Self-refutation' is an easier property to ascribe to a claim than 'impossible'. | |
| Jun 8, 2023 at 16:44 | comment | added | J D | @SiddharthChakravarty So, 'self-refuting' tends to be read as 'a contradiction inheres to an argument'. See WP's self-refuting. Logic is generally agreed upon and serves as a common ground in epistemological discourse. The notion of 'impossibility' is a question of linguistic modality, and particularly in natural language, is very vague. One might quibble whether a claim is self-refuting, but self-refutation is intuitive and much easier to find consensus than 'something is impossible'. What is and isn't possible depends on first-principles. | |
| Jun 8, 2023 at 16:08 | comment | added | Siddharth Chakravarty | @JD I am not sure I exactly get what you meant completely, I would appreciate if you be more concise about your meaning, so that I don't ponder off in some other direction. | |
| Jun 8, 2023 at 15:45 | comment | added | J D | Impossible is a much more difficult claim than self-refuting as self-refuting merely suggests a logical contradiction whereas impossible suggests a metaphysical impossibility. The laws of mathematics and physics include some which seem to suggest that there are some things that can't be known, such as the uncertainty principle and Gödel's incompleteness theorems. But metaphysics permits a much broader set of ideas that are non-empirical. @Siddharth Feel free to roll back. | |
| Jun 8, 2023 at 15:41 | history | edited | J D | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited title
|
| Jun 8, 2023 at 15:26 | answer | added | SonOfThought | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 8, 2023 at 14:56 | answer | added | Corbin | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jun 8, 2023 at 13:04 | history | edited | Siddharth Chakravarty | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 28 characters in body
|
| Jun 8, 2023 at 13:03 | history | edited | Siddharth Chakravarty | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 36 characters in body
|
| Jun 8, 2023 at 12:56 | history | edited | Siddharth Chakravarty | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1255 characters in body
|
| Jun 5, 2023 at 19:34 | answer | added | Jeremy D'Souza | timeline score: 0 | |
| May 9, 2023 at 19:14 | comment | added | CommunityBot | Please clarify your specific problem or provide additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it's hard to tell exactly what you're asking. | |
| May 7, 2023 at 17:55 | comment | added | CriglCragl | You confuse knowing, & being able to prove. We all know things that we can't prove. The precise nature & definition of qualia are a subject of philosophical dispute, so you can't simply take their unknowability by any other being as a given. | |
| May 7, 2023 at 16:18 | comment | added | Mauro ALLEGRANZA | Omniscience is meaningful concept in theology, not in human knowledge. | |
| May 7, 2023 at 15:41 | answer | added | Professor Sushing | timeline score: 0 | |
| S May 7, 2023 at 13:15 | history | mod moved comments to chat | |||
| S May 7, 2023 at 13:15 | comment | added | Philip Klöcking♦ | Comments have been moved to chat; please do not continue the discussion here. Before posting a comment below this one, please review the purposes of comments. Comments that do not request clarification or suggest improvements usually belong as an answer, on Philosophy Meta, or in Philosophy Chat. Comments continuing discussion may be removed. | |
| May 7, 2023 at 6:57 | review | Close votes | |||
| May 28, 2023 at 3:06 | |||||
| S May 7, 2023 at 6:15 | review | First questions | |||
| May 9, 2023 at 19:14 | |||||
| S May 7, 2023 at 6:15 | history | asked | Siddharth Chakravarty | CC BY-SA 4.0 |