Patrick Grim claims in "Problems with Omniscience" that there is a "simple truth well established as a logical theorem", which shows that omniscience is a contradictory concept. I am failing to see the contradiction. What is the "simple truth" and where is the contradiction?
Here is the relevant excerpt (p.3):
"For any such system it is well known that we will be able to encode formulae recoverably as numbers. We will use A̅ to refer to the numbered encoding for a formula A. It is well known that for any such system we will be able to define a derivability relation I such that ⊢I(A̅, B̅) just in case B is derivable from A. Let us introduce a symbol '∇' within such a system, applicable to numerical encodings Ȧ for formulae A. We might introduce '∇' as a way of representing universal knowledge, for example—the knowledge of an omniscient being within at least the realm of this limited formal system. Given any such symbol with any such use we would clearly want to maintain each of the following:
If something is known by such a being, it is so:∇(A̅)→ A.
This fact is itself known by such a being:∇(∇(A) → A).
If B is derivable from A in the system, and A is known by such a being, B is known by such a being as well:I(A̅, B̅) →(∇ (A̅) → ∇ (B̅)).
The simple truth, however, well established as a logical theorem, is that no symbol can consistently mean what we have proposed '∇' to mean, even in a context as limited as formal as arithmetic."
UPDATE: I found the answer to the question, but it is a bit too complex for me, and it is only partially available via preview, so what does this link mean, and does it indeed answer the question?