Can you kill someone with omniscience?

Sure, if it's part of their plan.

Only if you're so overwhelmingly above them that there's no possible plan of action that would avert their death.

So scheming / plotting / etc. doesn't help, only raw power. The kind of power that could find and kill someone even if they've had decades to hide, with perfect knowledge of where you'd look and in what order.

>>47046613
Sure, knowing something is not the same thing as preventing something.

>>47046613
this mostly cones down to does omniscience mean they have all world knowledge or that they literally know everything that can or will be, and if the latter does fate mean they know everything that will happen flawlessly or does free will mean they know all possible outcomes.

ifthey don't know the future then yeah, you can conceivably outmaneuver them or develop overwhelming force to kill them, and they'll know it. it will be difficult to bring this force to bear on them, but it's possible.

if they know the absolute destiny of everything then no, unless you are going to kill them anyway, and the know it's coming.

if free will exists then it's just an exceptionally less probable version of the first answer where you have to be able to maneuver them into a circumstance where all possibilities result in their death, and at no point between you plotting their demise and that moment are they able to devise and execute a possibility where they survive.

Yes. You know what can kill them, where it is, and when the perfect opportunity to strike is.

>>47046613
Only if they let you

Someone who is capable of doing literally everything and anything has to be able to die or there's a big gaping hole in their "everything and anything" power.
Of course, "anything and everything" includes "Prevent own death", so it's not going to happen unless they will it.

An omniscient person can still make mistakes.

Sometimes people know the things they should do, but they don't do them anyway. It's not just knowledge but also personality. It would be no doubt extremely difficult, but you can lean on their personality, try and goad them into a position where they ignore what they know they should do, and do what they feel like doing instead.

>>47046986
Omniscience, not omnipotence.

File: 960.jpg (134KB, 960x600px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 960x600px

>>47046613
This guy could.

>>47047027
Well then, yes, but only if they willingly walk into their own death or are somehow caught in a situation that they couldn't have prevented previously and where the alternative to death is something they'd consider worse than their own death (Maybe the death of someone else?). It wouldn't be easy in any way, but it can be done.

>>47046613
>Can you kill someone with omniscience?
Yes. You can kill me.

>>47046613

Omniscience doesn't mean that they've realized every connection or possible plan, nor does it mean they have the capacity to utilize their complete knowledge in such a way

Strike from an alternative reality that they can't see into.

>>47046613
wait, do you want to kill someone with omniscience or kill someone WITH omniscience?

>>47046613
Yes, if your method is in a way that they don't understand.

Convince them to kill themselves.

>>47047027
They're the same thing. If you're omniscient, it means you know how to do anything.

>>47047116
Yes, it absolutely does. That's what being 'omniscient' (all-knowing) means.

>>47046625
Is being caught part of his plan?

>>47047444
That's very different from being able to do anything.

>>47047444

If there's a way to do it, yes. If there's no way to become omniscient--or, even more importantly, no way to become omniscient that YOU can implement, then the knowledge does you no good.

"Oh all-knowledge of my knowledge, how do I become omnipotent?" "By being created omnipotent. That is the only way." "Well fuck."

>>47047444
Well I know the proper form for bench pressing a thousand pounds.

I can't.

>>47047444
Just because you know someone is going to punch you does not necessary mean you possess the physical capabilities to parry/dodge/etc the blow, especially if they know what they'really doing.

>>47047467
By knowing how to do anything, you can do anything. Take for example someone in a wheelchair, if they knew exactly how to maneuver themselves in such a way they'd be able to walk on two legs, what is stopping them from doing so? Omniscience means you know everything. There are no blind spots in your knowledge.

>>47047481
Or..."Oh all-knowledge of my knowledge, how do all the other powers work?"

Engineer solutions from there with your omniscience.

>>47047491
No, being omniscient means you can figure out a realistic way of becoming able to bench-press a thousand pounds. That or create one.

>>47047512
It means you know how to do it, actually. If you know how to do a thing, in such a way that you yourself could do it, what is stopping you from doing it?

>>47047512
Yeah, the target with omniscience COULD be some passive blob that can't do anything but know everything, including how they've got no escape from their doom. Depressing, huh?

>>47047536
>Engineer solutions from there with your omniscience.

Again, you're presuming that there is a solution to engineer.

"How do all the other powers work?" "Gotta be born with 'em."

> If you know how to do a thing, in such a way that you yourself could do it, what is stopping you from doing it?
No, you know all the ways to do a thing. That doesn't necessarily mean that all those ways includes "a way that you can do it."

>>47047536
>having all knowledge =/= being able to act upon all knowledge

Stop being autistic.

>>47047593
>>47047595

Except for the way to figure out a way to create powers. You know how to bend the laws of reality, regardless of whether or not they can be broken. Because you know everything. Everything you're speaking about rests on one thing: that the being isn't, in fact, omniscient. If you know everything, you know everything. Including how to make things that are otherwise impossible to do, possible.

>>47047536
The argument here is that you are combining time and knowledge. You are acting on the assumption that you have time to plan, that you knew all along. This is where the argument breaks down as we become distracted by the application of omniscience, and whether or not we are applying it on a "now I know, now what?" or a "all according to plan".

>>47047641
Omniscience is not omnipotence. You're assuming there are ways to bend the laws of reality. They might know, more than anyone, how powerless they are. You're not omniscient so you can't say what they would know

>>47047641
>ncluding how to make things that are otherwise impossible to do

And then there are things that are abjectly impossible to do.

Can you know what a rock is thinking? No, because rocks don't think.

Can you convince anon he is wrong and being a retard? No, because he does not think.

>>47047641
>If you know everything, you know everything. Including how to make things that are otherwise impossible to do, possible.

Again: IF that route even exists, and if it's available to you.

Omniscience would happily tell you that there is no way to make a 10 pound weight balance with a 5 pound weight on a fair scale. It would list all the ways you could change the scale or the weights that they balance, but if you don't have another 5 pound weight, or an unfair scale, or any of those things? You're shit out of luck.

"How do I bend physics?" "Well that's easy, you just need to be a 10-dimensional creature." "How do I become a 10-dimensional creature?" "You have to be born in the death of a star of exactly 310 Solar masses."

>>47047687
>>47047693
>>47047687
It doesn't matter if reality works that way. If a being doesn't know a thing, regardless of what that thing is, then that being cannot by any reasonable measure be called 'omniscient'. Not even near-omniscient, it just knows a lot. To be omniscient, you have to know EVERYTHING.

BUT CAN HE SEE WHY KIDS LOVE CINNAMON TOAST CRUNCH!?

Checkmate, onmiscients.

>>47047641
I know how to create a computer, I know how all parts of it work. However I can not make one without the proper equipment. I am physically incapable of creating one without said equipment.

Like that, but for superpowers. There are also tasks where no such equipment does or can exist.

>>47047709
>>47047717
Thus the creature isn't omniscient. Because it doesn't know how to create things out of thin air. Omniscience, I need to stress here, means knowing EVERYTHING. It doesn't matter whether or not it makes sense, you know how to do it.

>>47047586
>>47047687
>I know everything
>I know the inner workings of the universe, and with time can make it my plaything
>I know that even with all the power granted to me by this knowledge, XX will show up eventually and end me
>I absolutely KNOW this is unavoidable, because I know all
And now I am depressed.

File: 3253973-presence+creation.jpg (73KB, 882x688px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 882x688px

>>47047536
I don't think you understand what omnipotence is. If you have to wiggle yourself out of a wheelchair, you're not omnipotent. It doesn't matter if you have the mental schematics for bench-pressing a thousand pounds, if you can't just DO it, no effort or time required, then you're not omnipotent. An omnipotent person is not a really great engineer, they are a God, capital-G. Whatever they want, is.

>>47047712
>knowing everything means you are god

Nope, not how it works, fucboi.

>>47047712
Knowing everything doesn't mean that he there are actually solutions to be known.
You could know all the ways that a human body can move and know exactly how to move in all of those ways, but that doesn't mean that you're actually flexible enough to do it or that you could do things that are actually impossible, like stretching your arm 20 feet out and then reeling it back in, or jumping to the moon with nothing but your legs.

>>47047712
He knows everything, including what is impossible. The fact he know he can't do something doesn't disqualify him. Holy shit you are retarded.

Knowing everything doesn't magically break physical laws or create loopholes for him to use.

>>47047734
The fuck are you talking about? Knowing everything doesn't mean you can do everything. Making things out of thin air is impossible, he knows that. Knowing everything doesn't give him a way to do it if it's impossible.

>>47047734
>Because it doesn't know how to create things out of thin air.

Omniscience is, unlike the other two omnis, inherently bound to the universe in which it resides, because knowledge is a concept that exists outside the omni- creature.

Knowledge is a finite set, unlike power or places to be.

>>47047742
>The fact he know he can't do something doesn't disqualify him

It means he doesn't know how to do it. It's like an omnipotent being that can't lift a rock but can do everything else. It thus isn't omnipotent.

>>47047763
Thus the creature is extremely knowledgeable. Not omniscient.

>>47047790
>Thus the creature is extremely knowledgeable. Not omniscient.

If a creature knows everything, then it is omniscient by definition.

It's just that "everything" there is to know is not an infinite set.

>>47047790
>It means he doesn't know how to do it. It's like an omnipotent being that can't lift a rock but can do everything else. It thus isn't omnipotent.
Knowledge is a finite set. You're assuming knowledge is an infinite set including the solution to all things. It isn't.

You can't be this stupid, can you?

There is a problem with many solutions, these solutions form a finite set of what can be known as solutions. He knows all of these solutions and this is omniscient within this set. We increase the set to all of existence, and thus knows all solutions in existence. However, while large, this is still a finite set. This set does not necessarily include the solution or method for everything. He is omniscient within this set which is all of reality.

>>47047734
I am neither of the ones you responded to, but I gotta say.

Your argument works on the first, but not the second. He's right. If you know how to make something, but lack the materials, you cannot make it. Yes, you know where to get the parts, but you need access to them.

It's another problem of omniscience, access. What you know is limited in its applicability by what you have on hand. You would need to obtain the various ways to apply your extensive knowledge, and we come back to time.

Screw knowing everything, just give me control of time.

>>47047342
Clarification pls
Which one is killing someone with your own power of omniscience, and which is killing another person with the power of omniscience?.

>>47047837
>You're assuming knowledge is an infinite set
one could argue that the set of theoretical (as opposed to practical) knowledge could build infinitely due to piled-on ordinal concepts for orders beyond the smallest infinity.

>>47047790
Omniscience doesn't make one omnipotent. That's why those are different words.

Having one does not automatically give you the other.

And no, just because you are omniscient does not mean you know how to become omnipotent, you know that becoming omnipotent is impossible in its entirety. Full stop. There is no way of doing it. You are not omnipotent. And to become omnipotent is impossible. Only things that are already omnipotent are omnipotent, and they did not acquire omnipotentce, they always were omnipotent.

Knowing everything does not give a solution to everything. It means you know everything, including that you cannot do everything, because not everything is possible.

Go drink bleach.

>>47047899
But theoretical knowledge doesn'the matter, because it'seems all in your head. That'said WHT it's theoretical.

>>47047790
How can you know how to do something which isn't actually possible? If there is no possible method by which you can create matter from nothing, then not knowing it doesn't mean you're not omniscient. It just means that some knowledge isn't possible even for an omnipotent being.

Let me give you another example of impossible knowledge that might better illustrate the principle. What is the name of my younger sister? Well, I don't have a younger sister - I have a younger brother. So the omniscient being can't possibly know her name. He can know what her name would have been if she existed, but since she doesn't exist, her name doesn't either. Does that mean omniscience is impossible?

>>47047915
Not that guy, but maybe you know a way to become omnipotent, you just have to actually act on it.

>>47047899
One could argue but they would be wrong. Derived numbers from a measurement are not information, but derived information. With any piece of matter, let us say a single atom, there is a finite number of measurements that can be made with this atom with theoretically infinite derived measurements with permutations of invented units. However all these derived numbers do not supply new information beyond the measurements merely understanding of these measurements.

Omniscience implies understanding, and thus an understanding of the infinite set of derived measurements. However this does not create new information.

>>47047790
You seem to think of omniscience as acting under the assumption that everything is possible, it's like saying
>I want to know how to violate the first law of thermodynamics
The question presupposes it's possibility, this is not logical
Omniscience works like this
>Is it possible to violate the first law of thermodynamics? If so, how?
The answer to which is either
>Yes, do X, then Y
or
>No, it's the first law of thermodynamics, why would you ask that? It's a fucking law of nature you moron.

>>47047935
You can't become God, anon. God -is-.

>>47047948
>With any piece of matter
Does not apply to transfinite sets, which necessarily will contain every permutation of physical matter and then some.

>>47047974
>transfinite
All physical matter is not a transfinite set, it is merely an enormously large set.

>>47046613
Oh course you can, convince them to commit suicide.

Have they done it yet? No? Well then you've either failed or they're waiting for the dramatically appropriate moment.

>>47047717
An omniscient creature would know how to get all the parts required though. And know the best way to do it. They'd also, by definition, know if anyone was trying to catch them and how they'd be doing it and the best way to get away.

>>47047465
Of course!

>>47046613
>Can you kill someone with omniscience?
Strange. There are two ways to read this sentence.

>Can you kill someone through the power of omniscience?
Technically not. However, it would be easy to plan and implement someone's death, since it would involve just knowing the outcome of certain actions reliably. You could just arrange things so that their death becomes an inevitability, or avoiding death would be an impossibility. But you can't just think someone to death.

>Can you kill someone who has the power of omniscience?
Sure. Having an ability and using the ability are two different things. They could be omniscient and incompetent, for example.

You could also overwhelm them, or otherwise put them in a situation where avoiding death is not possible. An omniscient person actively avoiding getting killed is unlikely to be worked into such a situation, thanks to knowing everything, but it's still possible. Overwhelming would probably be a bit easier - just orbital bombard the planet or something - but cutting off options could be done if you know there is something they value enough to risk their life obtaining or protecting.

Isn't a more accurate definition of omniscience, "the knowledge of all true things?"

>>47046613

Being all knowing does not always mean being all powerful. They may know everything but they may yet still have limits to what they can affect at any given time.

Limits in ability are a weakness, and any weakness exploited without mercy, can be fatal.

>>47046613
You would probably need to be omnipotent.

>>47046613
Yeah, though it would be orders of magnitude harder than killing an average person.
I know I should eat healthy but I still enjoy fried food.
Just because they know something doesn't mean they will act in the best way.

Just do what the guy in OP pic did and convince him that you can kill him, making it true.

You trap them into a single line of destiny, and blind them with J-Waves

File: GodEmperorofDune-LetoWorm.jpg (101KB, 203x644px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 203x644px

>>47046613
Yes, of course you can, and keep telling yourself it was your own idea.

File: a11f2038-0217-4be6-a569-1056100b53ba..jpg (114KB, 528x752px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 528x752px

I do all the time

Yeah, accidentally.

File: ayy lmao.jpg (6KB, 250x241px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 250x241px

>>47047536
>Knowing everything means you can magically do anything even though it isn't possible

I refuse to believe you are this retarded, anon

>>47046613
Yes, by overwhelming them with brute force. Just because they know what you are going to do and how you are going to do it doesn't mean they will be able to prevent it if they are not physically capable of moving away from or stopping your attack.

>>47055464
>omniscience
>all knowledge
>based around casting spells for free
>not based around deck manipulation
Man, what?

>>47046656
Pretty much this. Assuming there's bo way for you to gain power similar to mine I could just blow up the planet hypothetically.

>>47047712
Everything doesn't not translate into the ability to do so. Why do you think the ability to do X is part of EVERYTHING.

Infinity doesn't not encapsulate everything please look at degrees of infinity

>>47057315
Omniscience and another card actually have the opposite names either due to error or wizard inability to use a dictionary