Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In constructive mathematics, the limited principle of omniscience (LPO) and the lesser limited principle of omniscience (LLPO) are axioms that are nonconstructive but are weaker than the full law of the excluded middle. They are used to gauge the amount of nonconstructivity required for an argument, as in constructive reverse mathematics.
It provides a challenge to the knowability thesis, which states that every truth is, in principle, knowable. The paradox states that this assumption implies the omniscience principle, which asserts that every truth is known. Essentially, Fitch's paradox asserts that the existence of an unknown truth is unknowable.
Natura non facit saltus [1] [2] (Latin for "nature does not make jumps") has been an important principle of natural philosophy.It appears as an axiom in the works of Gottfried Leibniz (New Essays, IV, 16: [2] "la nature ne fait jamais des sauts", "nature never makes jumps"), one of the inventors of the infinitesimal calculus (see Law of Continuity).
Other means of reconciling God's omniscience with human free will have been proposed. Some have attempted to redefine or reconceptualize free will: God can know in advance what I will do, because free will is to be understood only as freedom from coercion , and anything further is an illusion.
In Chapter 3, section IV, he notes that "omnipotence itself" could not exempt animal life from mortality, since change and death are defining attributes of such life. He argues, "the one cannot be without the other, any more than there could be a compact number of mountains without valleys, or that I could exist and not exist at the same time ...
Epicurus was not an atheist, although he rejected the idea of a god concerned with human affairs; followers of Epicureanism denied the idea that there was no god. While the conception of a supreme, happy and blessed god was the most popular during his time, Epicurus rejected such a notion, as he considered it too heavy a burden for a god to have to worry about all the problems in the world.
A demonstration of the possibility of omniscience through apprehending the selfless universal nature of all knowables, by examining what it means to be ignorant and the nature of mind and awareness. A demonstration of the total omniscience where all individual characteristics (svalaksana) are available to the omniscient being.
[11] In an article written in the third person called "Van Inwagen on Free Will," [12] he describes the problem with his incompatibilist free will if random chance directly causes our actions. [13] He imagines the universe reverting a thousand times to exactly the same circumstances [ 14 ] it was in at some earlier time and observing all the ...