Nothing wrong with vanilla ice cream.
There is a question in there. Do you have an answer?
Also, Im not arguing for or against free will. We can discuss that if you want but its not what Im getting at.

Also, Im not arguing for or against free will. We can discuss that if you want but its not what Im getting at. — DingoJones

Do you read before posting? I simply pointed out that omniscience and free will are mutually incompatible.

Lol, ok. So an answer to my question?

Lol, ok. So an answer to my question? — DingoJones

I did not see a question. All I saw was that you changed your metaphor from "vanilla ice cream" to "cookies". You can change it to pickled fish if you want... that does not turn it into an argument.

Then you should pay more attention, a clear question (a few actually) was asked, in simple english. My second analogy was better than my first attempt I thought. Better illustrated the point Im making.

a clear question (a few actually) was asked, in simple english — DingoJones

Post your "clear question in simple English".

That is the answer it will give and it does not disprove omniscience. I fail to see your argument with that point. Is it that because infinity is a concept and not a number, it can't be an amount of anything? Or is the argument that that is an example of limit of omniscience, and comparable of O having a finite maximum amount of information? — BlueBanana

Sorry, I got sidetracked. Mathematical infinity per se doesn't prove the impossibility of omniscience because a question like "what is the greatest natural number?", having no answer, under the condition that one knows the set of natural numbers is infinite, is inconsistent.

However, take a physical constant of the universe; it can take on any value i.e. its domain is infinity itself and since each value assumed is a universe itself, it follows that there are an infinite number of possible universes. Now, if a U such that nothing can be known of it must be ruled out, as required by omniscience, then a candidate being for omniscience must check each and every single possible universe but that's impossible because infinity, by definition, has no last element; no last element, no last universe.

Hello, new to the group. Just a point of order, really. The universe, by definition, is entirety. So, does it really make any sense to talk about "other universes" or "multiverses".

Could we refer to the unknown as any part of the (single) unobservable universe?

As to the general idea of omniscience, normally associated with "God", I believe it to be theoretically possible, provided it does not involve a logical contradiction, eg "Can you know what the highest prime number is?" [because that involves an infinity, which by its very nature, cannot be actualised.].

Hence, there are real numbers that exist but cannot be expressed in language. — alcontali

Off topic, But here's a question. Actually more than one question. Maybe resolvable in one answer. Hmm, How to ask it? The square root of two (for example) is uniquely identifiable (sez I because I think I just did it). But it is not expressible, because in no system of units can it be written down (or so I believe). Do I correctly understand your proposition to mean that there are numbers that cannot be uniquely identified (as opposed to expressible) in any system of language - given that language permits for itself creative efficiencies? If yes, then a consequence would seem to be that all of the combined powers of all possible languages, in however many ways conceived, suffice to identify only a quantity of numbers that is itself arbitrarily close to zero wrt all the numbers themselves. Yes?