AWKWARD ZOMBIE

YCobb wrote:Please stop treating Homestuck as scientific fact

What Chinmaster and I are saying is that if anyone knows what's going to happen, then that's what going to happen and no amount of decision making can change that unless they're wrong. (ie not omniscient)
And what you're saying is that there might be alternate timelines. If this is true, then there are two options.
The first option is that there is some guy who knows what might happen. This is not omniscience.
The second option is that in each timeline there is a separate version of the hypothetical omniscient being who knows what will happen in that specific timeline. There are two issues with this - first of all, free will is still impossible in any given timeline. The second problem is that this effectively negates the relevance of alternate timelines.

Wow no. If you think Homestuck came up with the idea that a timeline can branch out, you maybe need to rethink some things. Specifically that idea.

If the timeline is fixed and stable, it doesn't matter if someone can see what will happen it will happen anyways. That is the purpose and nature of something being fixed and stable.

If there is alternate timelines, an omniscient being isn't just seeing one. They're not going "oh so this happened at this spot where a bunch of things could have happened", they're seeing every possible anything that could happen at once. Their knowledge, being omniscient and all, is not limited to just the one timeline. They may know which timeline they are on, but to them that would be an irrelevant thing, because all of it would be clear to them.

This still does not make free will impossible. I've stated repeatedly why, and people can only seem to say that "no it would make it impossible because knowing things changes things" and I have gone over repeatedly why this is wrong.

If we do live in a constantly branching timeline, we have enough choice to actually dictate which one we're currently on, to a point. By making choices, we actually change what timeline we currently live in. That is not free will, no, but like I said before, free will isn't a real thing. We do not have the ability to even grasp at truly free will. We cannot do whatever we want simply because there are things that are impossible.

Someone sitting and only watching events cannot dictate where your consciousness will go. So any ability you have to make a choice isn't affected by the omniscient being.

Also, uh, this has stopped being a taboo topic.

We are still technically talking about what would be affected if God exists.

Edit: also what on earth are you talking about with "finite branches" and shit
Do you realize we live in an analogue universe governed on a minute scale by quantum phenomena, ie the only truly random variables known to exist? That whole "finite" bit is absurd to state as fact.

I'm sorry, I thought that the fact that there are things that cannot happen made it pretty obvious that there cannot be a truly infinite number of branches. Thus, there would be a finite amount.

YCobb wrote:Please stop treating Homestuck as scientific fact

Let's not go here.

Theories about alternate timelines and timeline splits have been a part of scientific theory and discourse for well over 50 years. It's certainly not proven yet, but it's very rude to disregard their work and postulation in a discussion just because pop culture has picked up on it.

What Chinmaster and I are saying is that if anyone knows what's going to happen, then that's what going to happen and no amount of decision making can change that unless they're wrong. (ie not omniscient)

And what if they change what happens and know exactly what their influence will result in before they even make the change? Granted, I don't think a God with omniscience would change anything about their universe because ultimately helping out with miracles and such would create problems down the line, and a branching timeline would mean that while you may have a crappy life, there is a you out there that had an amazing one, so a God wouldn't feel obligated to intervene.

Even so, the possibility exists that God is omniscient about the universe and any potential effects they have on it.

And what you're saying is that there might be alternate timelines. If this is true, then there are two options.
The first option is that there is some guy who knows what might happen. This is not omniscience.
The second option is that in each timeline there is a separate version of the hypothetical omniscient being who knows what will happen in that specific timeline. There are two issues with this - first of all, free will is still impossible in any given timeline. The second problem is that this effectively negates the relevance of alternate timelines.

Neither of these things are inherently the only options. God is very likely wholly removed from the universe, as the laws of it do not apply to them. God would be removed from the effects of time, which means rather than living through it in a linear fashion, they'd be aware of every possible moment of time, even moments in our future, at once. This does not necessitate a new omniscient being for every timeline, nor does it mean God loses omniscience just because you have choice. God would know exactly what choices you're capable of making and their results before you even made them.

Not that I'm trying to mod here (oh god forbid I try to mod sweet lard)

But is there anywhere this conversation can really go? I mean this is basically a discourse pertaining to the unknowable ways of the universe that science as a whole barely understands as it is. There's no real concrete fact when it comes to alternate universes and timelines or time travel at all so I kinda fail to see the point of a laymans debate about the whole thing when nobody can really be said to be right or wrong at the end of the day. That pertains to omniscience as well, really. I mean we have idea about what an omniscient being may be like if one was known to exist, but who's to say with our lowly pitiful three-dimensional brains that we'd even be alble to understand such a thing.

Iunno conversations like this come off as sort of dumb and useless to me.

In response to the responses to my comment about Homestuck: I'm specifically talking about GM's frequent reference to certain "facts" established in Homestuck that are not necessarily true and have never been seriously postulated by serious philosophers - for fresh example, the idea of a fixed timeline. You can't have a fixed timeline and the possibility of others unless you either A] aren't talking about anything or B] are applying, consciously or not, Homestuck's policy of creating branching timelines in specific situations.

Also, in response to GM's incorrect comment about impossible things limiting the number of branches a timeline might have: please think about these things before saying them.
First of all, very few thing are impossible. On that front you're basically limited to surefire creation of mass or energy. Anything else is physically permitted by the universe and therefore possible.
Here's the kicker: that whole last paragraph doesn't even matter in the context of the statement being wrong. Infinity minus one is still infinity. Infinity minus a trillion is still infinity. Any number of impossible events doesn't actually limit the number of possible events.

But from here, I agree with Vax. Even this post is useless because it's arguing things that still aren't taboo in any way.
(Discussion of god, especially in hypothetical terms, isn't really taboo. It was taboo when it was about rape. There's nothing socially unacceptable about pondering free will.)

YCobb wrote:In response to the responses to my comment about Homestuck: I'm specifically talking about GM's frequent reference to certain "facts" established in Homestuck that are not necessarily true and have never been seriously postulated by serious philosophers - for fresh example, the idea of a fixed timeline. You can't have a fixed timeline and the possibility of others unless you either A] aren't talking about anything or B] are applying, consciously or not, Homestuck's policy of creating branching timelines in specific situations.

I'm not saying that fixed and alternate timelines exist at the same time. In fact that's the opposite of what I'm saying, which is that they're so different they would change the relevance of an all-seeing being, and I'm not sure how you came across the idea that I was saying anything else.

I've been applying both because, like every other human being in the world at the moment, I don't actually know what kind of ways time works. These two are the most basic, and generally when people think about time, they consider one or the other. The idea that time is fixed, that events will happen no matter what, is not new in any way.

So, still, maybe be sure that you understand what someone is saying before you dismiss it.

Also, in response to GM's incorrect comment about impossible things limiting the number of branches a timeline might have: please think about these things before saying them.
First of all, very few thing are impossible. On that front you're basically limited to surefire creation of mass or energy. Anything else is physically permitted by the universe and therefore possible.
Here's the kicker: that whole last paragraph doesn't even matter in the context of the statement being wrong. Infinity minus one is still infinity. Infinity minus a trillion is still infinity. Any number of impossible events doesn't actually limit the number of possible events.

Except for this key fact that infinity bodaciously means something without limits.
The second there are limits then it's not infinite it's just very very very very big at best.

My bad on the fixed timeline bit.

Your bad on infinity. You're doing that thing where you make up your own definitions that are wrong. Here's a puzzle, how many numbers are there that aren't five?

Infinity (symbol: ∞) is an abstract concept describing something without any limit and is relevant in a number of fields

Assuming there's no limited ends on the number line, the number of numbers that aren't 5 is infinite.

1/3rd is .333333... with the threes going on infinitely.

The instant something goes from "very big" to "no limits" it becomes infinite. If there is a limit, even if it's astronomically large and impossible to type out, it is not infinite, but finite.

Another thing is that numbers can be made up. If someone wanted to spend years and years and years on the subject, they could probably just think up a number that absolutely nothing is. Numbers are bodaciously only limited by the number of zeroes you can put on the end of one.

Kamak wrote:

Infinity (symbol: ∞) is an abstract concept describing something without any limit and is relevant in a number of fields

Assuming there's no limited ends on the number line, the number of numbers that aren't 5 is infinite.

1/3rd is .333333... with the threes going on infinitely.

The instant something goes from "very big" to "no limits" it becomes infinite. If there is a limit, even if it's astronomically large and impossible to type out, it is not infinite, but finite.

But "not five" is a limit. My point is that just because a given event may be impossible, there are still infinite possible events. You could put a limit of "not creating matter or energy from nothing" on the set "possible events" and the set could still be infinite.

Galaxy Man wrote:Another thing is that numbers can be made up. If someone wanted to spend years and years and years on the subject, they could probably just think up a number that absolutely nothing is. Numbers are bodaciously only limited by the number of zeroes you can put on the end of one.

numbers are not "made up;" I don't know what you're trying to say. You're not making a point very well if at all.

I'm saying that there are only so many numbers we have named, and that in theory, you could come up with a number that is so high that no amount of matter, when counted out, could ever reach it. It would be a number, but not a number that could be reached.

Note that this wouldn't be infinity either. Infinity isn't a number, it's a concept.

I'm beginning to question your grasp of the concepts we're discussing.

Here's a better demonstration. If you don't get it, I'm going to give up.

We have a circle. It is an arc spanning 360 degrees. From the 0/360 degree point to the 90 degree point, I decree all points on the circle invalid. The remaining points of the circle consist of a 270 degree arc. The number of points in this arc is still infinite because that's how circles and arcs work. That is an example that is totally exempt from your criticism of infinity. (Not that your statement was relevant to the discussion as it pertains to hypotheticals, anyway)

What you're doing is exactly like pointing at a recursive fractal and saying it's finite because it doesn't fill all of space forever. You're demonstrating a total lack of understanding. I'm sorry, but you really shouldn't be talking about infinity if you believe limitations make a set necessarily finite.

I'm saying it's finite because while (maybe, mind you) an infinite number of things could happen, on the smallest possible scale then the options of things to happen is limited, if not by it being the smallest possible thing, then by the simple fact that everything takes time to occur and most things take much longer relatively than the smallest possible amount of time. This means the potential universes occurring from that smallest possible amount is not going to be infinite.

You're going to have to explain that better.

Are you saying "time happens in very small increments so changes must be very small" ???? Because buddy that doesn't make a single difference and is founded on a claim of dubious and fundamentally unknowable factuality.

I'm saying there's not infinite options at the smallest level.

I figured that was clear when I said "This means the potential universes occurring from that smallest possible amount is not going to be infinite."

And where exactly are you getting this fact? There are infinite possibilities at every level unless you believe our world is digital, with some analogue to pixels at a very, very deep subatomic level.

And if that's what you're proposing, then you'd better be an incredibly brilliant scientist with some hella impressive evidence for it. Otherwise, your argument is entirely baseless because that is not a theory that has ever been anywhere near proven and frankly I'd be surprised if it has ever even been proposed.