I will make a couple of assumptions that are necessary to answer your question:
We are assuming the computational theory of mind, all thinking and reasoning can be represented as some form of computation achievable by a Turing machine. If we allow for a mind with super-Turing capabilities (for example in Penrose's theory that human minds are more powerful than Turing-machines), then all bets are off on what a such mind can do and cannot do, and your question becomes unanswerable.
Wisdom here implies an increased capacity to compute: There is no standard philosophical definition of wisdom (or for intelligence for that matter). Using colloquially there term wisdom to mean the ability to make properly understand situations and to make good decisions (that is to accurately model relationships between data, and predict the outcome of events based on new inputs), Wisdom implies a certain capacity to solve computational problems. Again, if we include other possible factors in the definition of wisdom (i.e. emotional responses, empathy, moral and ethical judgements,...) your question becomes unanswerable.
Now for the answer: simply put, No.
Your being, being in all space, is equivalent to saying that a Turing machine has infinite tape.
Being in "all time" would be hard to define, but I am going to take as either meaning that the Turing machine is non-deterministic, or it is an Oracle machine.
Either way, there will always be problems a given Turing machine cannot solve.
Increasing the amount of tape available or allowing for non-deterministic processing allows for greater speed in solving problems, but doesn't increase the scope of which problems a given Turing machine can solve.
Even assuming for a magical Oracle that can retrieve an answer with perfect accuracy, there will still be problems a Turing machine can't solve.
This a result of the halting problem and the limits of Turing machines: For any given Turing machine, there will always be undecidable problems. Even If you take a Turing machine (deterministic or not) and add an Oracle to it to allow for it to answer questions immediately using that Oracle (for example by providing it with an Oracle for the halting problem), there will still be a class of problems that it cannot solve. If you add a super-Oracle for solving those problems as well, you will face a new set of problems that the new system (Turing machine + Oracle + Super-Oracle) problem cannot solve. This leads to a hierarchy of problems called the arithmetical hierarchy.
There are those that argue that super-Turing computation might be possible, but that stance is not accepted by most computer scientists and mathematicians (see here and here). You will find many philosophers who might argue for the possibility of hyper-computation, but that usually leads to metaphysical proportions, which I said at the beginning of my answer make your question unanswerable.
To summarize: a being with infinite computational resources (in terms of space and time) will still face questions it cannot answer. This is due to a fundamental limit on what a Turing machine, even one equipped with an Oracle can and cannot solve.
After reading your comments and the discussion you're having with Virmaoir, I will add the following relevant information. If by wisdom, you mean an ability to correctly predict outcomes, than another way of seeing why omniscience doesn't lead to "omni-wisdom" is Woplert's theorem.
Mathematician David Woplert proved in 2008 that no intelligent agent can fully predict the evolution of a system that it is part of. In the context of your question, an being within a universe can never completely predict the future state of that universe. The only way to do that would be from outside the universe, i.e. the being has to have all the information contained in that universe, and more (i.e. be able to observe it from the outside). Wolpert's result was published as a refutation of the idea of Laplace's demon: Laplace proposed that a demonic being with absolute knowledge of every particle's current position and current speed in the universe, should be able to infer all the past states and all of the future states of the universe from that information. Wolpert arrived at his results using a method similar to Turing's result with regards to undecidability and the limits of Turing machines. So the two results are ultimately variations on the same principle.
See here for Wolpert's original paper and for an article on his result.