It's analytically always the case that there will never be only one way. — Pfhorrest

I’m talking pragmatically not analytically.

Not maximize, and not try to. A wholly good state of affairs is one where all appetites are satisfied. — Pfhorrest

Not maximize? So there are times when you would purposely choose to stray away from the ideal of all appetites being satisfied? Based on what?

I would assume if your goal is all appetites being satisfied then you would choose the option that gets you closest to that. But that’s consequentialist. But idk how you would avoid it.

Likewise, on my account something being moral is about it being a part of our hedonic experience, everyone's hedonic experience. Morality doesn't look like anything per se, or smell like anything per se, but it feels good, it feels comfortable, it feels like a full belly, it feels like all of your appetites are sated, and it feels like that to everyone, not just you. And if there was some state of affairs where everyone felt good like that, and yet someone wanted it to be different in a way that made someone not feel good, or said that there was something still morally wrong even though everyone's every need was met like that, then that person would just be incorrect. — Pfhorrest

I can get behind that. Isn’t it consequentialist though? Here you’re saying that the only arbiter of whether or not someone is wrong is whether or not people’s needs were met. If the act meets people’s needs, it cannot be wrong. How do you avoid consequentialism then?

THIS IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! — counterpunch

This is a public forum every post is everyone’s business. If you want to talk to one person in particular DM them, there is that feature. The fact that you’re not using it implies you want people to read and reply to you. But then you throw a hissy fit when they disagree or call you out. Are you sure you should be using a public forum?

So you didn't know what you were commenting on... — counterpunch

False. I didn’t notice how old it was. Don’t be purposely obtuse just so make a “comeback statement” like this.

Bu that isn't what I said, is it? — counterpunch

False. You said:

I don't know Issac. It's not merely a matter of distance run, but whether you are running in the right direction.
Have you actively sought to abandon your assumptions and base your arguments in solid realities, like epistemology, evolution and physics, and then see if your philosophical favourites can be sustained in those terms?
Or are you looking down the wrong end of the telescope - starting with some metaphysical concept, like being, or some moral purpose - like equality, and bending the world around it?
Do you have a tendency to think in terms of superlatives - highest, fastest, biggest, strongest? That's often a road block.
Are you unreasonably attracted to nihilistic despair? You know you can just turn your back, because nihilism supports no value that requires you accept nihilism. All these, and a thousand other things - I've had to force my way past. Have you? — counterpunch

Which amounts to: “I worked really hard on my ideas therefore they’re right”

and sought to make matters worse — counterpunch

Ah yes. Calling you out for being a prick is “making matters worse”.

You’re not worth the time I spend writing this. You think that any disagreement is due to the other side being stupid, disingenuous, or mentally ill (seriously, why go to a public forum if you’re always going to argue in bad faith). This site isn’t a circlejerk. People won’t just agree with you. Yet you can’t handle that, and just paint any sort of opposition as stupid or disingenuous so you don’t have to argue with them. Furthermore when someone calls you out for being a prick you cry about how it’s none of their business (on a PUBLIC forum).

You may have some thoughts of value but it’s not worth it for me to try to tease through your close mindedness and inability to be cordial to get at them. Good luck dude. Hope you get out of your own head one day and learn some humility.

There is never only one way. Appetites are data points: the states of affairs desired are curves fit to that data. And there are always infinitely many possibly curves that can fit any possible data. — Pfhorrest

Well you don't know that. What you said does not prove that there will never be a case where there is only one way. But regardless, it was a hypothetical "what if".

I already said earlier that my notion of "the objectively correct morality" does not involve any compromise. — Pfhorrest

How do we figure out what the "objectively correct morality" looks like? We try to maximize appetite-satisfaction no? But what happens when these appetites clash is the question. If the goal is to maximize appetite-satisfaction, then the one with the stronger hunger just wins out no matter what they are hungry for. That's consequential-ism but how do you avoid it if your goal is purely to maximize appetite-satisfaction?

We're all stuck inside of our own subjective experiences, both descriptively and prescriptively. We can never know for sure that there is or isn't a physically existing elephant apart from our experiences of it, or that there is or isn't anything morally analogous to that. All we can do is choose whether or not to act as though there is some objectivity attainable, in either case. — Pfhorrest

It goes a level beyond that. I cannot even conceive of putting morality "out there" in the world in the same way you would put an elephant. An elephant is a separate entity from us that has its own agency. "Objective morality" doesn't have its own agency. We cannot see or touch "Objective morality". "Objective morality" would cease to exist the second we do. Etc...

Sure we are stuck inside our subjective experience when seeing the elephant but I don't understand what it means to "see objective morality" from within these subjective experiences in the first place. What does it smell like? What does it look like? Is it edible? Nonsense questions. But not so with the elephant see?

I can conceive of "inter-subjective" morality in the sense that we all agree on what we should do but that's as far as it goes.

You did not contribute to the discussion between Issac and myself. — counterpunch

I thought it was a lot more recent than it was. Didn’t realize I was commenting on something from weeks ago.

Your understanding of it is flawed. — counterpunch

How so? Here is what happened: In the OP you characterized a lot of positions (relativism and others) as nonsense and false. And you called those who believe in them idiots that would require you to blow smoke up their ass. Then Isaac pointed out the obvious: What makes you such an authority? What if you’re the one being the idiot?

Your replied with, effectively: “Because I worked on my philosophy really really hard so I must be right” a piss poor defense, because you then asked Isaac if he has done the same and it turns out he has and yet you two disagree. You then asked him “Then why do we disagree” and got no reply as far as I can see.

So I wanted to hammer the point home in case you didn’t get it. Maybe not everyone who disagrees with you is biased or idiotic as you pretend is the case in the OP, maybe they worked just as hard as you did and with just as much scrutiny if not more and arrived at different conclusions. Maybe your inability to upset your position should not be used as evidence that it is right.

I say this because your kind of thinking is what ends up with people putting themselves in echo chambers and refusing to ever change their mind at any cost. You think you’ve “figured it all out” and all opposition is due to people being morons or disingenuous. Tip: if EVERYONE you talk to is a moron and disingenuous maybe the problem is you not them.

You also inserted yourself into an argument between me and Tobias and gleefully attempted to aggravate the situation. — counterpunch

If you want to call “calling someone out for being a prick” “aggravating the situation” then you’re absolutely right I love aggravating situations.

Why do you do that? — counterpunch

Because as I said you were being a prick and I wanted to call you out on it. The guy got mad you were being condescending. You could have either apologized or ignored him. You instead accused him of being an over sensitive loser who is not interested in bettering his philosophy. Sneaking in the word “Sorry” in the middle of the accusation doesn’t change it to an apology.

Weren’t you asking in this thread how to communicate more effectively with us peasants so you can spread the light of your amazing and perfect worldview O wise one? Well here is advice: Don’t be a prick. Also don’t assume your opposition is being idiotic or disingenuous jut because they don’t agree with you.

shit stirrer? I don’t mean to be. From my view you were being a prick and so I treated you in turn so maybe you would learn to stop being a prick.

As for the actual comment:
You implied in the OP that philosophy is such that if you spend enough time and work hard enough at it, everyone will come to the same conclusions as you. You talked to Isaac for a bit and found that (surprise surprise) you had not, in fact, “solved” philosophy at all, as he had spend similar amounts of effort and did not find such a solution.

The first sentence can be translated to “Maybe the position you lay out in the OP is wrong” and the second translates to “Maybe you shouldn’t conflate the universality or rightness of your views with your inability to upturn them”.

I apologised — counterpunch

Oh, an APOLOGY is what that was huh. Good to know...

I was sorry you felt condescended to. — counterpunch

Sure you were :rofl:

Then be pissed off. I don't know how else to address the fact that you don't get it. Should I just let you go on and on - talking bollocks because you don't get the basic idea? — counterpunch

Now I'm sorry you're not willing to work at philosophical understanding. — counterpunch

You just sit there with your fucking mouth open. — counterpunch

Saying “I’m sorry” then proceeding to be a prick is not very effective.

What you're describing is a person who is suffering somehow (every unfulfilled appetite is a kind of suffering) and thinks that seeing other people suffer will alleviate his own suffering (satisfy his appetite): someone who has some appetite (his own suffering), and interprets that into a desire to see someone else suffer. — Pfhorrest

Yes. And who also knows that others suffering fulfills this appetite.

It does care to alleviate his suffering (satisfy his appetite), in some way. — Pfhorrest

But what if that is the only way? Here, compromise would involve harming others for this person.

But it also cares to prevent the suffering of others (to satisfy their appetites), so the alleviation of his suffering can't be done in the way he wants to do it. — Pfhorrest

Not necessarily. The way you made your system, his appetite is just as valid as anyone else’s. It has the same moral weight. So if he is suffering hard enough due to this appetite, and we know of only one way to fix it which is causing suffering to others, if the latter suffering is smaller than the former we must allow him to do as he likes. Because after all, we’re looking for the best compromise and dubbing that “the objectively correct morality”

Think about the parable of the blind men and the elephant, which illustrates the distinction between sensation and perception/belief, which is analogous to the distinction between appetite and desire/intention. Each blind man touches a different part of the same thing, and on account of what he feels, thinks he knows what he has touched. One man thinks he has touched a tree. Another thinks he has touched a rope. The third things he has touched a snake.

All three of of them are wrong about what they think they have touched. But the truth -- that they have touched different parts of an elephant, its leg, its tail, and its trunk, respectively -- is consistent with the sensations that they all felt when they touched it. They were all wrong in their perceptions or beliefs, but the truth has to accord with all of their sensations. One of them being really really certain that the thing they all touched absolutely has to have been a snake and cannot possibly have been anything else doesn't change anything. — Pfhorrest

Just sounds bizarre to me. In this example the elephant is a physical existing thing. But I don’t see how this can be analogous to moral situations. There is no “moral elephant” as in “the objectivity correct morality”. I agree that there definitely is the “best compromise morality” which satisfies the most appetites, but I don’t think that is really what anyone’s looking for. You say the two are the same. I don’t think all hedonic experiences should be taken as data points to indicate how we should compromise. Some appetites should be ignored.

I think Alan Watts would be best. He’s not really an philosopher he’s a zen guy. But he goes over this topic a lot. A popular quote in zen is: “In Zen, you do not find answers, you lose questions”.

Someone who wants to see other people suffer can get fucked as far as what he WANTS, but whatever psychological pain is probably behind that desire is something that deserves alleviation somehow or another — Pfhorrest

Which is precisely what gives them too much leeway. If someone has a dying thirst for others’ suffering, then by your system we should take that into account and try to alleviate it. I see no way to do that that doesn’t harm others in some way.

But it doesn’t at all demand that everyone agree, in their desires or intentions, about what is good in order for it to be good. It’s possible that everyone could fail, in different ways, to come up with a model of what concords with all hedonic experiences, and that wouldn’t change that such a model, whatever it is, is the universal good, even though nobody intends it. — Pfhorrest

And the way to come to this model is to maximize appetite-satisfaction correct? I disagree with this. I think some appetites shouldn’t be considered at all. I don’t see why maximizing appetite-satisfaction should be the goal. It’s just arbitrary.

A universalist phenomenalism is possible. — Pfhorrest

If by this you mean "universal inter-subjective agreement is possible" sure, I don't think anyone is debating that.

"Most inter-subjective" doesn't mean "utilitarian". As I said early I'm opposed to utilitarianism on the whole, I just agree with its definition of what makes for a good end; I disagree entirely with consequentialism as a just means. So utility monsters don't blow up the system I advocate. — Pfhorrest

What is the system you advocate then? How do you deal with someone who has an extremely strong appetite for seeing people suffer?

So, now I basically look for a theory about other theories which has the power to organize the room of theories. From my understanding, I now want to learn about the meta-meta theory. — Trachtender

What makes you think you'll find ONE meta-meta theory instead of a bunch of conflicting ones again? Or that you'll find one meta-meta-meta theory even, ad infinium.

Heck what counts as meta is in itself a point of debate. Philosophers think, and psychology/neurology study why and how we think, so are they "meta-philosophy"? But at the same time there were philosophical foundations required for psychology and neurology to be studied. So which came first? It's a chicken and eggs problem.

My advice is to just learn to live with the uncertainty and get on with your day anyways.

I don't think it's so much puzzling as interesting. Our minds are embodied. It would not be so surprising to posit that thinking causes movements outside of just the brain (at the tongue for example) and that it is more difficult to think when these movements are forcefully inhibited. Just like it would be harder to run with your arms and shoulders locked in place.

What's the significance of this though?

people who, like I fear you might be doing, rightly reject transcendentalism and “therefore” wrongly adopt relativism (when all they needed was phenomenalism, which you can have without relativism). — Pfhorrest

I thought it would be clear that I use “objective” and “subjective” in the second, less useful sense. So to reject transcendentalism is to adopt relativism.

I am wholly on board with everything, reality and morality both, being “subjective” as in phenomenal, not transcendent — Pfhorrest

But conversely I’m also adamant that we take both to be equally “objective” as in universal, not relative: never accepting that anything short of unlimited intersubjectivity be taken as sufficient in our answers, though because we are limited in our knowledge and power we will often be forced to make do for the time being with just the most intersubjectivity that we can manage. — Pfhorrest

Not only do I disagree with the definition (when “inter-subjective” is available and gets rid of all confusion), I also disagree that the most inter-subjective morality is the correct one. You run into utility monster issues, where people with the strongest appetites get too much leeway.

and the other of which I oppose because it’s a useless non-sense of the term that I would rather never be used. — Pfhorrest

The latter is the sense of “objective” as in transcendent, the opposite of phenomenal — Pfhorrest

Also the more common use. I also agree that it's a useless term because it never comes into play. What is "transcendentally true" doesn't matter, only what seems true, because we always deal in seemings. But that's why I use "inter-subjective" when I want to refer to the first use, to avoid any sort of confusion.

there is no sense to speak of about either of them that is not grounded entirely in our experience of the world, and if there somehow was more to either, whatever that would mean, we definitionally could not ever tell, because to tell we would have to have some experience of it. — Pfhorrest

:up:

But conversely I’m also adamant that we take both to be equally “objective” as in universal, not relative: never accepting that anything short of unlimited intersubjectivity be taken as sufficient in our answers, though because we are limited in our knowledge and power we will often be forced to make do for the time being with just the most intersubjectivity that we can manage. — Pfhorrest

To me it always seemed like the task of finding the most "inter-subjectively" fitting morality was a task for the social sciences, politics, and some neurology, not really the task of philosophy. I don't see the point in musing about it without data and research. If figuring out the best moral code was easy enough to be done by a couple of shmucks on the internet we wouldn't have fought wars over it.

But there’s no sense getting on to that topic at all if we’re not even on the same page that there is some objective good that we’d be trying to approximate. — Pfhorrest

I just don't like the word use. "Objective morality" is a term that has already been booked as the second use (I think thanks to the Abrahamic religions which make morality transcendental). Which is why if I hadn't read the rest of your comment I would have disagreed with the statement. But hey, you do you. Just telling you that it may come off as confusing.

I find many posters do this on the forum. Sort of "dress up" subjectivity as objectivity by having an unorthodox (and much weaker) definition of the latter. I'm not against it but you just never know which use they intend which is why I use "inter-subjective" only.

But an objective answer is an unbiased answer. So an objective morality is one that takes into account all such feelings (all appetites). — Pfhorrest

That would just be an inter-subjective morality. IE one that tries to make it so that as many people as possible get their "moral appetites" filled. It's a compromise. But when I hear "objective morality", "compromise" isn't the first word that comes to mind. An objective morality implies a right answer, regardless of what appetites you may have, not merely a social compromise that satisfies the most appetites. That right answer should not change based on the society, but your "objective morality" is purely defined by the majority appetite of the society it's in.

The way you use objective just seems really odd.

Sounds like you're there! So why do we not agree? — counterpunch

Because maybe not everyone who disagrees with you is a moron or biased. Maybe there is no such thing as an unbiased view and all you did was find a view you could no longer upturn.

I don’t know what 1 means really.

2- Truth is relative but some truths get closer to “inter subjective” (a number of people believe the same thing) than others which is all you can hope for.

3- No. All relative.

4- Apes evolving, No real reason it just happened, I don’t know but it looks like we’re not going anywhere with what we’re doing to the planet.


Also I think you should add the question “What’s the purpose of philosophy” or “Why do you discuss philosophy”. For me it’s a form of recreation.

I wouldn’t call “there is nothing to stop it” “necessary”. I’d just say “there is nothing to stop it”. “Necessary” usually means that there is a reason it must happen. Which is different from “there is no reason it wouldn’t happen”.

oh

unrelated to the thread but wait, you agree that the harm problem exists but have a problem with Qualia?

I can’t. But in the case of mind I find people try to (with varying success) analyze their own minds. That’s what psychology is about for one. And any form of reflection is just the mind looking at itself as an object of analysis. Heck, I would be surprised if someone did NOT have some sort of model for how their mind works.

The subject - the mind that makes judgements, that names things and categorises things - is never itself the object of analysis — Wayfarer

You just used the mind that makes judgements as an object of analysis to conclude that it cannot be an object of analysis. I don’t get it.

for the obvious reason that it’s not ‘an object’ at all. — Wayfarer

I thought we were trying NOT to split things into objects and subjects here.

Since time is just a measurement and nothing may be measured sooner then NOW, now becomes the starting point for all measurements of time. — Present awareness

Sure.

Since it is NOW everywhere in the universe, there is nowhere one may go where it isn’t now. — Present awareness

Agreed.

But that is different from the OP’s question. OP is asking when the “starting point of time” is. He is not asking whether or not we can measure time at a moment other than now or if we can be at a moment other than now. He’s asking how far back do our measurements go.

Existence precedes all other contingent things and they inherit their existence from the necessary existence that is. — EnPassant

How do you know it’s necessary? Also I like your name.

Only human beings have conscious minds. — Ken Edwards

How do you know this? What about all the other animals that have memories and can communicate? Heck, how do you know I’m conscious?

Not at all. It might surprise you to know that Thoughts actually exist physiologically as Patterns or Arrangements of brain cells inside of human heads. — Ken Edwards

I’m not sure if it makes sense to say “thoughts are patterns” rather than “thoughts are caused by patterns”. But this might just be a meaningless nitpick.

Go for it. I mean, by hypothesis, what you think is the case now is the case. If you tell yourself that contradictions are true, they will be - right? If you tell yourself that 2 + 8 = an elephant, that's true, right? — Bartricks

Not right. We humans determine things all the time and are wrong to not stick to the agreed upon definition. Apples did not need to be called “apple” for example. We made up the word. The word could have been “eueudjw” but it is apple. So while I COULD start calling apples “eueudjw” I would be wrong to do so. In the same way that I would be wrong in claiming that 2+8=elephant is logical.

Or are you only responsible for one or two imperatives of Reason? In which case, which ones are yours? — Bartricks

When did I say I issued any?

Cos that person would be Reason - that is, God, right? — Bartricks

False. Your fallacious argument would suggest so though.

For why posit lots of minds when one mind will do? — Bartricks

Because one mind won’t do. One mind would suggest two things that don’t match reality. Firstly, that there is a mind that “talked” to each of us individually and told us about these imperatives. That never happened. If anyone had memory of it no one would be arguing against you. And secondly that these imperatives are set in stone and whole from the beginning. Which contradicts the fact that we argue about their contents and why their contents tend to increase across history.

So, given that we are aware of our own mind's existence (and have better evidence for its existence than we have of any other), we should start by assuming that the mind of Reason is our own mind. — Bartricks

Very dumb. Clearly neither of us has issue with other minds existing (heck, you don’t have issue with positing a mind that tells all of us something although none of us remember its instruction) so no need to assume it’s you personally. There is plenty of evidence against that (for example, neither of us discovered logical imperatives on our own instead of being told them). And I’ve just given two pieces of evidence hinting that it’s not 1 mind that makes these imperatives in full so you don’t need to assume it’s one either.

Note, it would make no sense to suppose instead that I am the source merely of 'some' of the imperatives of Reason and other minds are sources of other imperatives. That would not be a simple thesis at all. — Bartricks

If the simplest thesis makes no sense then you move on to the next simplest. One mind being responsible for all of the imperatives would not explain why we argue about their contents or why none of us remember this mind instructing us to follow the imperatives.


And others have said this objection already but I’ll say it again. You have no reason to assume that your reason actually matches the imperatives God created. You have no reason to assume God isn’t trolling you. So then you cannot assume that using your reason will yield correct results. If that’s the case your argument obviously falls apart. You don’t just need it to be the case that your argument is reasonable (not that I think it is in the first place) but you also need it to be the case that God gave us the right “reason”. And you can’t show the latter. Heck, assuming you’re correct no argument can ever be known to be right.

There's a burden of proof to discharge. One mind is the default, not multiple minds. — Bartricks

You assume there is a set of imperatives called “the imperatives of reason” that has been issued to us by some mind or other (again, I don’t have any memory of God telling me about the law of non contradiction) and yet we somehow are still trying to figure them out? Why are their contents debatable if there were issued to all of us individually by God himself?

On the other hand I think the set of “imperatives of reason” is issued by people. Because that’s a simpler explanation than suggesting a complete set, that had already been issued, that we still for some reason have to try to figure out and argue about its contents.

Maybe we’re not “arguing about” so much as creating the contents of this set? That makes it a lot easier to explain why these imperatives of reason change over time and get updated and why we argue about them so much. Example: Occam’s razor is not an immediately obvious imperative, and one that was not widely used for the longest time even.

It also side tracks the problem of when exactly God gave us this imperative, as again, I have no memory of this and doubt you do either. I bet you learned about the imperatives of reason through people and their books like the rest of us, not through some divine inspiration.

First, a bunch of minds isn't a mind. Imperatives can't be issued by bunches of minds. They have to be issued by individual minds. — Bartricks

Can’t each imperative have been issued by a different mind (not necessarily a 1 to 1 ratio)? And couldn’t those minds have been people's minds? What’s the issue with that?

I have a while ago. I don’t see how it relates.

he's very adamant we should believe it equals 4, for he tell us we 'must' believe that. — Bartricks

I think I’d remember if God himself taught me math. Far as I can remember, it was my elementary school teacher that told me 2+2=4, not God. How do you explain why people can not know math then? Or not know what a valid argument looks like? If God provides this free education for all apparently (how nice of him)

And what would it look like if God decided 2+2 suddenly equals 7 tomorrow? Will we all just wake up and know it is 7? When I put 2 pens together do 5 more materialize? Does our reason update real time with the commands of God or is there some sort of delay? What of the physical laws that rely on 2+2 = 4?

And why can't a solipsist be a realist? after all, the thought that the external world has independent existence is just a thought, and solipsists accept the existence of thoughts. — sime

Because a solipsist thinks it's no more than just a thought and is not actually the case. While a realist thinks it is the case. This is like saying "Why can't a pro life person be pro choice? After all, the thought that mothers should be able to choose to abort is just a thought, and pro-lifers accept the existence of thoughts"

You assume it is impossible to overcome so no wonder you think people trying to overcome it are wasting their time. And you don’t seem to question that assumption.

What you mistakenly call "Dogmatic", in reality is an "Affirmation based on extensive research". — Gus Lamarch

Those two things are not mutually exclusive. Affirmation of research can become dogmatic at which point it’s no longer scientific.

Egoism is the human nature, and it can be studied and proven to exist by language, culture, the individual psyche, and history. — Gus Lamarch

No doubt. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to overcome it when we can. Why are you treating it as an inevitability.

We thought Newton's theories could predict outcomes reliably for the longest time. Turns out they couldn’t and we were making a mistake.

Right? — Bartricks

Doubt it. Still think you’re just spouting nonsense and calling it expertise. Would welcome being proven wrong though.

God exists because imperatives of Reason exist and require an imperator — Bartricks

As I said, I don’t buy that they’re imperatives. There are certainly imperatives to stick to the laws of reason. But the laws themselves are not imperatives. You claim to have argued that they are, if so quote one of your arguments and I’ll show why it doesn’t work.

To better understand what you mean: Is the law of gravity an imperative? Did someone need to will it?

And that imperator will be able to do anything - including things he forbids - because they're his imperatives. — Bartricks

I don’t see how being able to decide what the laws of logic are leads to being able to do anything. Because the way I see it, logic is a mental faculty, not something that is in the world itself. Changing the laws of logic to me just means changing how people think, not changing anything about the world.

And I don’t see at all how being the arbiter of these laws makes one omniscient. I’ve explained why to theMadFool.

Just around the corner is vastly different from omniscience. No amount of infallibility will allow you to deduce the current population of earth for example. Or what I’m thinking of right now. You need premises and an established body of empirical observations for an infallible logician to be useful in the least. Which is, again, vastly different from an omniscient person who would know exactly what I’m thinking of right now without requiring any extra data (because omniscience is precisely possessing all the data there is and will be) — khaled

As for me, god's omnipotence is a matter of knowing how the universe works and working, as they say, within the system — TheMadFool

Sounds like a bizarre definition but you do you.

You may need to make adjustments to the story but not so much as to miss the point of this story. — TheMadFool

And that point is? I honestly have no clue.

He knew that unborn calves in a fetal position would have their tails curled up with the end resting on the forehead [assume this is true] — TheMadFool

This knowledge is not deducible even to a perfect logician, if he is not given premises it can be deduced from is the point. Which is why a perfect logician is not omniscient.

abilities explicable within the existing framework of knowledge. — TheMadFool

So could your omnipotent God cause entropy to decrease? If he can't even do that (bring about a theoretical possibility but a technical impossibility) then what kind of God even is that? He/She/It wouldn't be able to do any more than a sufficiently rich and intelligent person with a lot of time and resources, and I struggle to call people like that omnipotent Gods.

You need to be an expert to recognize one. — Bartricks

That’s not the dunning Kruger effect. People can recognize experts just fine. Because most experts can put what they’re saying in sensical terms and don’t resort to ad homs when someone critiques their position. You’ve demonstrably not done either of those things. So that’s why people don’t recognize you as an expert. I find it hard to believe despite your claims about being qualified.

A mind free of fallacies never makes mistakes i.e. the art of gaining knowledge would reach its zenith. That being the case, omnipotence is just around the corner. — TheMadFool

Just around the corner is vastly different from omniscience. No amount of infallibility will allow you to deduce the current population of earth for example. Or what I’m thinking of right now. You need premises and an established body of empirical observations for an infallible logician to be useful in the least. Which is, again, vastly different from an omniscient person who would know exactly what I’m thinking of right now without requiring any extra data (because omniscience is precisely possessing all the data there is and will be)

Secondly, omniscience implies knowledge of how to produce a desired effect and that's just another way of saying that with omniscience one can become omnipotent. — TheMadFool

False. Some effects could be impossible to produce in practice but not in theory. For example: reducing entropy. It is technically possible for every atom in the room you’re in right now to move in such a way so as to go to a corner and become a lattice and you would suffocate. But the chances of that are astronomically small. And there is no way to artificially produce that effect without increasing entropy elsewhere.

But an omnipotent person would just be able to command that to happen. An omniscient person would only know that it is extremely unlikely, and that there is no artificial way to produce it and so would not be able to produce it or hope for it.

Or a simple example: A perfect logician cannot bicep curl an airplane when asked to and given no prep time. A God can.

An even simpler argument for why omniscience doesn’t lead to omnipotence is if it did then omnipotence would be obsolete. It’s like saying “Khaled is a being with brown eyes, who also has eyes”. The latter follows from the former and so requires no mention.