I think you've made my 'totalitarian mindset' point (à la Brave New World ... Nozick's Experience Machine thought-experiment ... the android Norman's speech in "I, Mudd") for me, mam – I've no reason to doubt that this "all-knowing omnibenevolent entity" would coopt us into engineering a humanly inescapable menagerie ("Matrix") for our own good that optimally simulates "the illusion of agency".

You may opt out. Remember, he is not omnipotent. He can only show you, not force you.

You may opt out. — Vera Mont

Junkies may opt out too, but ... :smirk:

Junkies may opt out too, — 180 Proof

I should think being a junkie as close to opting out as you can get this side of suicide.

Junkies do opt out when they have sufficient reason. I've done so.

And it is the opposite of suicide. You just have to dress up the same for both occasions.

You may opt out. Remember, he is not omnipotent. He can only show you, not force you. — Vera Mont

Exactly what I was getting at. I deliberately removed the omnipotence aspect of the typical three omni paradox in the OP because it was more interesting.

Being omnibenevolent may mean that for some who do not want to know more, the being would respectfully not impart their knowledge to them.

Others on the other hand would be delighted to have their questions answered. Free will in this sense is maintained in a way where with omnipotence, it would not.

I don't see this as totalitarian in mindset or action. At most it's totalitarian in knowledge (omni).

The real difficulties come when their knowledge of solutions to immediate crises are rejected by people through their own free will, even when failing to deploy these solutions will lead to definite harm and suffering.

One must ask themselves then: is the being more omnibenevolent to allow you to harm yourself because you didn't know any better, or use their knowledge/wisdom to take away your choices and resolve it without your consent in order to minimise harm.

Ironically, I feel this is a situation parents often find themselves in with a teenager (as a less extreme example ofc).

No room left for 'human agency' which would be contrary to the entity's all-knowing omnibenevolence. — 180 Proof

I see what youre getting at but not necessarily. Perhaps human agency (free will) is at the pinnacle of their determination of what is good for us.

For example, omni benevolent omniscient being approaches deluded suicidal person. Deluded suicidal person begs being to respect their decision to end their life despite the omni being explaining there is an alternative.

If the omni being respects the ignorant or deluded suicidal dudes decision to deny their knowledge, are they being malevolent? Is it malevolent to allow for human agency even if it seems irrational or harmful to the person in question?

The real difficulties come when their knowledge of solutions to immediate crises are rejected by people through their own free will, even when failing to deploy these solutions will lead to definite harm and suffering. — Benj96

That's been the fate of every person in history who was able see farther than their contemporaries. Your being would just sigh and accept it as human nature.

Perhaps human agency (free will) is at the pinnacle of their determination of what is good for us. — Benj96

:chin: Even so ...

I've no reason to doubt that this "all-knowing omnibenevolent entity" would coopt us into engineering a humanly inescapable menagerie ("Matrix") for our own good that optimally simulates "the illusion of agency". — 180 Proof

Would you even believe them? Would you want to speak to them? Would you like them or despise them? — Benj96

I was actually discussing this with @Truth Seeker the other day and this person actually exists, this person is me. Apparently, he does not believe me.

You did not provide evidence for your claim - that's why I don't belive you.

See?

*sigh* again