Why introduce this non sequitur? "2 + 2" has nothing to do with "two centimeters and two millimeters" — Real Gone Cat

I was referring to the general statement “Two plus two is four”, which is presented as if it is a law of the Universe (Re: "seems to live in its own pristine, immutable world, entirely beyond the reach of any outside power to change"). "Two and two" what? If the context of numbers were mentioned or if the statement were "2 plus 2 equals 4", then there wouldn't be a doubt. But it wasn't. Hence my example with centimeters and millimeters just to show why not any "two" can fit to this equation.
Is it more clear now?

“Two plus two is four” — Art48

Even in Math, one cannot state this in a general way. Two centimeters plus two millimeters do not equal four. (Four what?) They are just equal to "two centimeters and two millimeters". You can only add homogeneous things. Even if both centimeters and millimeters are units of distance, they are heterogeneous. In Math, they are called "incommensurable" (being of different kinds, degrees or dimensions).
(BTW, in Math it is always better to use the term "equals" than "is", since the latter has multiple meanings as I describe below.)

One has to differentiate between the different meanings of the word "is" ("be").
"Be" can mean exist, be present, take place, position in space, come from (some place). And of course, "equal", as described above. It can also refer to a condition or state, age, meaning/signification, attribute/characteristic, and more.

So, which of all of the above meanings of "is" are you against? (Re: "Against 'is'")

my children ARE wonderful; democracy IS the best form of government ... — Art48

These refer to attributes you assign to persons and things. They are your opinion; part of your reality. They are true for you. How certain you are about them does not matter.

Outside you, things are what they are. (Re: “it is what it is.”).
This, depending on the context in which it is stated, it may be just an "empty" statement, meaning nothing in particular, or it may mean something like "be realistic", "try to see things as they are", etc. All of which are relative, indicative or figures of speech. Because no one can actually see things "exactly as they are". One can only do that on a scale: from falsifying facts, to being biased about something, to being honest and showing selflessness in one's judgment and behavior regarding something.
A classic example: "Please try to see me as I am".

So, I cannot see anything "against 'is'"! :smile:

Yes, I read that, but shouldn't you question Laing's idea of the true and false self? This is what I did.
I also read "being true to oneself". It refers to a person's integrity, honesty, etc., which is quite different from the concept of "true self" (as one could possibly imagine it). And, as I explained it is impossible to define or describe. It was on this that I would like to have your say.

I only ask that read some of the stuff I just posted (as well as some of what others posted), think abut what we are trying to say, and then post back with what your thoughts are on it the subjects that are brought up. — dclements

I did read the whole stuff that uou posted. And I responded to that. So we are OK.

Hi Jack.

I am asking the question of what it means to find the "true" self. — Jack Cummins

Where does the idea of "true self" come from? What is it based on?
How can it be considered as "true"? As opposed or compared to what? False, fake, divided, imagined, idealized?

"True" indicates something absolute, but can there be such a thing in this case? And if there existed such a thing, how could one recognize it? How could one be absolutely certain about such a thing? Because, if a self could not be recognized as such, it couldn't be called "true", would it?

if man was meant to fly God would have given us wings. — dclements

I can't see the connection, but anyway. The "argument" above is almost the same with the classic "If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle"! :smile: Mine, if you can call it an "argument" too, is not hypothetical. It's factual.

the two things in life that seem to be certain is death and taxes — dclements

Well, you can evade taxes! :smile:

OK, joking aside, I really don't see what are you trying to find out or establish in your topic ...

If a 'Harry Reid' isnt a competent enough representative for you I wonder who would be. — Seeker

I didn't question this guy's --whom I didn't know anything about and I wonder how many people in the world know about him-- general competence. I just checked and saw he is a politician. When I talked about "competent agents", I was obviously referring to technical competence. And particularily in the field of Space and more particularily in Research.

Well, I shouldn't have been involved in all that. So, allow me now to go back to my indifference-about-the-subject state. :smile:

Up until now quite a few high profiled people have put their reputation (and careers) on the line to voice the truth about their personal experiences concerning unidentified objects and specimens, from military pilots to former area 51 employees all the way up to a US senator Harry Reid. — Seeker

Yes, the famous "Area 51" ... Well, I have stopped being interested in these things since a very long time ago. But I would be glad to see the facts you are talking about being disclosed publicly --I mean widely-- and in an official way --I mean by competent agents. With details, evidences and all. The sooner the better!

the possible existence of an extraterrestrial entity needs proof of existence for such to be considered fact. — Seeker

Certainly. And, BTW, I wonder, do we have any proof? Real I mean. Who can answer that, who is both honest and knowledgeable on the subject? (Jimmy Carter, maybe? :grin:)

Isn't sacrificing a few thousands a kind of genocide itself? Certainly, from a consequential viewpoint. But not from an intentional viewpoint. Because you and the dictator have different intentions. Besides, isn't this what hapens in wars? A war and the deaths that occur as a consequence, is unethical only from the part of the side that starts it with the motive of satisfying own interests and destroying the other side. It is not unethical from the part of the country that defends itself. (See Putin and the war in Ukraine.)

Consequentialist ethics are wrong. You cannot judge an action based on its effects or consequences. If you threaten my life with a gun and I kill you first to save my life is not an unethical action. It is considered self-defense. If I tell you something that hurts you, because of some person reason that I wouldn't know about, it is not unethical from my part. It would be only if I intended to hurt you by saying that thing.

It's the intention that counts.

We're never going to encounter extra terrestrial life face to face. — Seeker
I did not write that but user "Nils Loc" did, please re-evaluate. — Seeker

You are right. I considered the whole reply as addressed to me and that this was a statement you just quoted to support your views. My mistake. So, I "re-evaluate" my judgement: You are innocent! :smile:

Are you asking Why life is life?
Because life includes death by definition (implicitly at least).

Perhaps only if 'they' consider us a threat ... — Seeker

Yes, but I can't see why they would. Except if they are afraid of being contaminated by our coronavirus --and thoushands other viruses-- if we visit their place. Which, BTW, is a mutual threat.

But only if based on facts rather than assumptions. — Seeker

(Re: Including extraterrestrial life in academic curricula).
Facts come first of course. But Cosmology and Physics are plenty of theories which are based more on theories than on facts. (Although I'm far from an expert in these fields to talk in detail.)

We're never going to encounter extra terrestrial life face to face. — Seeker

Isn't this a huge assumption? What happened to the facts you were talking about?

Bottom line for me is that I don't care about this subject. But I prefer to know that it --as a lot of similar subjects-- is handled based on logic and whatever scientific evidence we have, rather than superstition, pseudo-science and other weird stuff and confusions of our time.

Very interesting topic! And an excellent description! :up:
Both are among the best I have ever come upon!

Below are some points that I liked especially, I can share without reservation and want to stress.
(They belong to the first part, i.e. up to the "What is the alternative?"

- "Today, the scientific worldview is dominant."

- "We have narrowed our understanding of reality down to elementary particles and quantum physics, and the prevailing view is that every phenomenon can be understood as long as we can understand the way these elementary particles interact with one another."

- "The mechanistic worldview contains within it a promise of power. A promise of complete control over our reality. A promise of certainty - of complete understanding."
(Comment: In which it has failed.)

- "The nature of morality changes when its basis is no longer fuzzy debates over thousand-year-old scriptures, but instead reason, rationality and hard facts and logic."

- "The scientific method has brought mankind very far indeed, and it has made good on many of it promises."
(Comment: Indeed, this deserves a big acknowledgment.)

- "However, today we are also increasingly confronted with its apparent limits."

- "While science suggests that we ought to be humble about the extent of our current knowledge, the mechanistic worldview, where it has mostly been faithful to scientific methods and principles, now has departed from it."

- "Increasingly we see that, where once the mechanistic worldview was a source of progress, humility and scientific rigor and critical thought, it instead is becoming a source of arrogance and wishful thinking."
(Comment: Excellent point. I also talk about scientits' arrogance. Very characteristic!)

- "Citizens, meanwhile, are seen as little more than soulless objects, not unlike the machinery that once instilled us with trust in the mechanical worldview."
(Comment: Quite inspiring!)

- "Given the right input, the citizens can be made to exhibit the politically desirable output. Through processes of social engineering man can be constructed to suit the purposes of other men. Man has become a machine."

You wasted your own time. — Pantagruel

How could I know that you would come up with nothing, smart man?

You have included quite a few references for reading in your description of your topic. I am going to read them, but let me first examine Artificial General Intelligence from a general viewpoint, as I know quite a few things on the subject of AI.

From Wikipedia:

1) "Intelligence has been defined in many ways: the capacity for abstraction, logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, critical thinking, and problem-solving."

2) "Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is the ability of an intelligent agent to understand or learn any intellectual task that a human being can. It is a primary goal of some artificial intelligence research and a common topic in science fiction and futures studies. "
(Note: If taken literally, which is usually the case, one can undestand that it can do any intellectual task that a human being can. Which is preposterous, of course. If you have a doubt, just check with the definition of "intelligence" (1).)

3) "Artificial intelligence (AI) is intelligence demonstrated by machines, as opposed to the natural intelligence displayed by animals including humans."

4) "Intelligent agent is anything which perceives its environment, takes actions autonomously in order to achieve goals, and may improve its performance with learning or may use knowledge.
A thermostat is considered an example of an intelligent agent ..."

5) "A thermostat is a regulating device component which senses the temperature of a physical system and performs actions so that the system's temperature is maintained near a desired set point."

Can a mechanism as the above be considered "intelligent"? There are thousands of devices that do similar things. Should we considering them as "intelligent" or "smart"?

The word "intelligent", when applied to any kind of a device --from thermostats to supercomputers and robots-- is used as a figure of speech. (Is a "smartphone" really "smart"?)
And because these things (are programmed to) really do amazing things and also because of the ignorance of the general public regarding what a computer, programming and AI is, people believe they have or can have a soul and mind of themselves. Science fiction also helps a lot in that!

In fact, the only entity that can be called really intelligent is the human being. Animals can be called intelligent too, but to a very limited extent, comparing to human beings.

And it is the human beings who program devices to do things that themselves do mentally.
Devices execute instructions, which are contained in programs created by humans.
Devices cannot and do not think. Humans can.

At this point, it helps looking again at the definition of "intelligence" (1) in relation to devices.

(BTW, I am a professional programmer, and AI is one of the main fields I work in.)

The prefix trans- means across, beyond, or on the other side. So transphysical encompasses and extends the physical. — Pantagruel

OK, but this is just a literal-etymological analysis. This is not an answers to What does "trans-physical" mean? I, on the other hand, brought up the definition from two dictionaries. If you don't know yourself what it actually means, you shouldn't talk about it and waste people's time.

the trans-physical can encompass the physical, but not vice-versa. — Pantagruel

I've never heard the term "trans-physical". So I looked it up in two dictionaries. The both say "of or relating to the body". But then, the common term "physical" is also defined as "related to the body". So, your sentence above means "what relates to the body can encompass what relates to the body, but not vice versa". If I'm wrong please correct me.

If you are a hard-materialist-cognitivist, my trans-physical conception of nature can incorporate any physicalist interpretation without conflict. — Pantagruel

I'm anything else than a "hard-materialist" or even just a "materialist".

I think, in the context of my post, the whole thing is about conceptualizing consciousness; I would say that is the point. — Pantagruel

So, maybe then you are questing the nature, mechanism, etc. of consciousness. Because you are already using the term and concept of "consciousness" as something known, given. Because to talk on any subject you mast start by defining. And this definition is what I am talking about.
For example, to talk about "fear" you must first define it, identify it so that both you and other people who are reading/hearing you know what you are talking about. Then, and only then, you can start talking and seeking about the nature of fear, how and where does it occur, etc. See what I mean?

Then, I believe that one must not assume a priori, as something known and given that the nature of consciousness --whatever that is-- is physical. For one thing, because simply this has not been proven.

So, you must then ask, is consiousness something physical, non-physical or both? Does this makes sense? (I hope yes! :smile:)

I think it is a mistake to think that we can authoritatively define it. — Pantagruel

I don't hink so. You can alsways start with a commonly accepted definition of consciousness, which is a state of being aware and perceiving something. You can bring in another, also common, one as a very basic definition. This is a base --and necessary-- point on which to build the exploration f consciousness. You must build on some foundation. You can't build on the air or on confusion --which, as I mentrioned, was what a felt reading this topic. This is my opinion. And I believe it makes sense.

Then, since perception is a basic element of consiousness, it must be always taken into consideration in its "exploration". This, and other things that will be found to be connected to consciosness will help having more control on the process. Don't you agree?

Considering the way humans generally behave towards different cultures and belief systems I'm having serious doubts about our level of maturity and I actually wonder if we ever get to a (collective) maturity level fitting for such a contact. T — Seeker

I agree. You are very right to doubt about our maturity regarding this matter.

There are still places on the planet --inhabited by primitive communities-- where people are not ready to receive most of the technology existing and used in the civilized and developed world. (Some of them, e.g. consider airplanes passing over their territory as (threatening) huge flying beings.)

But even in developed countries, people are ignorant of things most of the rest of the world is aware of. It is known that Chinese people were among the last to know about Man walking on the moon, and they did after a few years thus had happened. Tis also known, that Chinese, even today, are ignorant about their neighboring countries.

It all has to do with education, government and living conditions. A lot of information is just missing or, in some regimes, even forbidden, from the education of people.

And when I talk about forbidden knowledge, I'm not referring to authoritarian governments, but to democratic ones too.

Since you believe that extraterrestrial life exists --which is very logical-- you might also believe that the US government had always hidden and is still hiding information about extraterrestrial life. Which, of course, gives food to conspiracy theories and ... mystery or horror movies! :smile: And this of course, creates mainly fear about extraterrestrials.

How can then one expect from people to be ready to accept and receive extraterrestrial life?

Extraterrestrial life must be included in the curriculum of Anthropology or other kind of courses in schools. And the governments must start to disclose to the public and inform it about any information on extraterrestrial life they have. Only in this way can people get ready to receive extraterrestrial life.

In the meantime, science fiction --which also plays a role in our education-- must get more mature on the subject of extraterrestrial life and start presenting it from a logical aspect. For example. why would a much more advanced civilization than ours would travel that far a distance to destroy or even occupy our planet, which is on the verge to be destroyed by itself? Would we have done that if we were in their place? Is this the spirit in which Man regards space exploration? And so on.

I'm quite interested in this subject.
However, and unfortunately, I am a little confused with the use of "consciousness" and "awareness". It would be good if you started by offering a definition of both, and how they differ or resemble.
I really wonder why people don't do that, esp. when complex concepts or ones the meaning of which is known to differ --sometimes a lot-- from one individual to another[/b] are involved. Examples/applications of the key terms are also often needed, depending on the complexity of the subject, to make these concepts better --if not at all- understood in the context they are used.

How else can a topic be expected to be understood in the way the person who posts it intends to and means it? And how can a sensible and productive discussion take place when each interlocutor understands the key terms/concepts in a different way?

Isn't all this too logical?

It is conceivable that consciousness exists in the universe in forms not bound to human or even biological — Pantagruel

In what way and form does consciousness exist in the Universe?
I really can't see that. Not in the way I understand consciousness.

If there were direct awareness of events at the cosmic and the quantum scale (which is the limit towards which intellectual awareness itself proceeds), — Pantagruel

In what way and form does awareness exists about events at that level?
I really can't see that. Not in the way I understand awareness.

I can't see a lot of other things for the same reason.

Lack of definitions make me also ask in what way do consciousness and awareness differ for you? Esp. when consciousness is generally considered as a state of being aware of something ...

OK.

You are right.

Do you disagree that I offered decent definitions of their everyday meaning? — Yohan

No, not at all. I appreciated this. Personal definitions are just fine. As far as they do not deviate much from standard ones. That's why I prefer using mainly the second ones. They are the best and safest way in discussing based on common terms and not on misundestood, misinterrpreted and/or distorted definitions or descriptions.

As I said, not interested. Sorry.

What exactly do you mean by that? Simply that it’s necessarily treated like one under the First Amendment? — praxis

No, this is what you said: "Atheism must be treated like a religion under the First Amendment."
What I talked abouy is Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Anyway, let's do not continue going astray from the topic, esp. talking about such a trivial matter ... I'm not interested, anyway.

This is not "simply someone who does not believe in the existence(/nonexistence)of God"
That is me, as an agnostic. — Yohan

This is exactly the definition of atheist, not agnostic.

Let's put them both in their right place. I will bring in two standard references: one dictionary and one encyclopedia. Anyone is welcome of course to bring in other standard sources.

1) Agnostisicm
(Agnostic is) "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God." (Oxford LEXICO)
Agnosticism is the view or belief that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural is unknown or unknowable. Another definition provided is the view that ''human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify either the belief that God exists or the belief that God does not exist.'' (Wikipedia)
Common in both: "Nothing is known or can be known about God"

2) Atheism
"Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods." (Oxford LEXICO)
"In the broadest sense, it is an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. (Wikipedia)
Common in both: "Lack of belief in the existence of God"

Atheism must be treated like a religion under the First Amendment. — praxis

Yes, I mentioned that to you earlier, didn't I?
"A recent case handed down by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals holds that atheism is entitled to the same treatment that traditional religions receive under the Constitution." (https://watermark.silverchair.com/47-4-707.pdf))

Your main point about non theistic faiths was fine, which is why I left it alone — Tom Storm

Glad to hear that. Not esp. because you accepted it --it would be also fine if you didn't-- but because you have read it! :smile:

Just a follow up - when people say atheism is a belief, I general say, 'actually it's a lack of belief.' — Tom Storm

I agree. Yet, some atheists try also to prove that God doesn't exist. Which has no sense, as I have mentioned earlier in this thread and elsewhere. You can't prove --and it doesn't make sense trying to do so-- that something does not exist, which you assume a priori that it doesn't exist or which has never been proved to exist! We create an imaginary God in a arbitrary way, we give it imaginary attributes. also in a arbitrary way, and then we try to prove that it doesn't exist neither are its attributes!
An atheist is simply someone who does not believe in the existence of God. That's all. And this does not mean that he/she does not have a religion or is not a religious person in general him/herself.

Just as not believing in fairies is not a belief. — Tom Storm

Right. It's a lack of belief, as you said earlier.

Of course, I am talking here about a specific usage of 'belief', not just what a person believes... — Tom Storm

I know.

E tu, Brute?
Are you too trying to find mistakes in secondary and unimportant points and stick on them, like @praxis?
I said --in parenthesis-- about agnostisism and atheism that they "carry the concept of religion" and that was wrong indeed. I would have rather said that they are related to religion.

And what a "coincidence": Neither you nor @praxis have commented on my whole point which was the essence of my response to the topic and much more important than the above mistake.

Next time please try to comment on my whole point. Both of you.

Agnosticism and atheism aren't generally considered religions if that's what you meant to say. — praxis

No, I didn't mean that atheism and agnosticism are or are considered religions. What I said, that "they still carry the concept and attribute of 'religion'" is ineed wrong and thank you for noticing it. I would better say that they are related to religion.

And in the following reference, atheism is more than just related to religion:
"A recent case handed down by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals holds that atheism is entitled to the same treatment that traditional religions receive under the Constitution." (https://watermark.silverchair.com/47-4-707.pdf))

Anyway, you shouldn't pay that much attention to this detail, which was a secondary and unimportant point in my whole post. It is my whole point where you should put your attention on and comment on.

If you revere your favourite band or movie, it can become like a religion, — Yohan

This is only a figure of speech. From this aspect, there are millions of religions in the world.
Let's don't vandalize the concept of religion, the term "religion" and religion itself!

You don't have to go that far. A simple answer can be given by examining religions in which "God" or a "Supreme Being" or a "Higher Power" is not a part. They are called non-theistic religions.

The first and most important of them is Buddhism. (There may be some secondary deities, but only in some of its forms.)

Then, we have: Agnosticism, Atheism, Jainism and Taoism
(The first two are considered as faiths or beliefs, but they still carry the concept and attribute of "religion".)

Then, there are a lot of relatively modern religions --recongized officially as such-- where God or Supreme Being, etc. play no role in them, but do not make the "headlines" ...

Just a quick note to say that Freud himself used das Ich, which means “the I”. Not too far from “self”.
It was the translator James Strachey who chose “ego” (and “id” and “super-ego”). — Jamal

Thanks. It's good to know.

What about the summarizing that I mentioned --or just the disclosing-- of the tendencies you had in mind in creating this topic? It's much more important than Freudian terminology!

Ego is not a philosophical but a psychological term. Most probably it has been created by Freud.
In my opinion, it is a useless term. It has so many facets and nuances that it can only produce confusion, except maybe among (old) psychologists who speak in the same terms and on the same level.

It is better to use the word "self", which is both a psychological and a philosophical term, because it much more simple as a concept and has a more restrictive meaning and use.
"The philosophy of self seeks to describe essential qualities that constitute a person's uniqueness or essential being." (Wikipedia)
But even this term should not get particular attention and importance in any philosophical discussion. Even simpler words/terms like "person", "individual", "human being", even just "you", me", "us", serve very well as references.

Now, I didn't quite get from your description what the "innate tendencies" of an "ego" are, or what could they serve to us. There's a multitude of --maybe innumerable-- tendencies a person can have. They may well be discussed on individual or group basis, without involving complex and confusing terms, such as "ego".

So, it would maybe good, if you agree, to just summarize what are the tendencies you have in mind and then create a discussion on them.

Do you have any philosophical musings about why we are compelled to do this, without going off thread! — universeness

(I had to look up "musings". :smile:) I don't think we can discuss this without going off thread! :grin:
Anyway, I don't know if we are compelled to do that or just "fall" into that, like in a trap. And our mind can set up a lot of traps. Esp. if we let it do that. A fallacy, a self-contradition and all kinds of mistakes of logic, occur when we give our logic a "break". When, e.g. we are too cool, or inattentive or not interested enough, etc. Not a big deal, though. As long, of course, as we are able to detect and correct these mistakes ...
Well, all these are offhand thoughts ... I was never asked such a question! :grin:

You don't want to invoke the wrath of the mighty titans, labeled 'mods,' and their terrifying siren call! — universeness

"Mods" ... It seems it's my vocabulary day ... But I wan't so lucky with this one! :smile:

If you don't feel you can comment without going off thread then you could PM me a response if you want. — universeness

I think this is a wise idea. Well, it was, because I already replied in here! :grin:)

If I know that p is true then I believe that p is true. — Michael

I just wonder ... If you know that 'p' is true, why do you have also to believe it is true? What does "belief" add to it? Anyway, knowledge is stronger than belief. Beliefs are not knowledge. A belief may be an opinion, a certainly and at most a conviction. But all these are relative. They lie on a scale of of certainty: from very low to very high. Knlowledge on the other hand is not relative. It refers to something absolute or definite. "I know that this is true." That's all. (If it is true or not for you or most people, it's another story.) On the other hand, saying "I believe this is true" is quite different. I leave a window of uncertainly open, however small.

In fact, I could say that belief precedes knowledge, rather than follows it. I say, "I believe he is innocent. There's some good evidence about this." Then, when if the person is proved indeed innocent, I will know that he is.

What do you think?

the only system that could prove a system was omniscient would have to be itself, omniscient. As only an omniscient would know all possible questions. — universeness

Exactly. Good point!
So, we have a closed, self-referential system, about and from which no knowledge can be obtained. As far as we are concrened, it represents an absolute "unknown". Yet, we are giving it a name it and even we define it. How can we do that, if we don't know what's in it? Well, I guess, in order to be able then to refute it! :smile: It's one of these games/tests that we create --knowingly or not-- so that we can challenge our logic. This is good. We must test and challenge our logic on a constant base!

This might be an interesting description for those who can follow this kind of symbolic logic. I can't.
However, I have something to say about the subject of this topic.

This kind of paradoxes --"The paradox of omniscience", "The paradox of omnipotence", etc.-- are well known and have been and are being discussed quite a lot in here and elsewhere.
What they all have in common is that they are not actual paradoxes because they are based on arbitrary and inexistent elements and/or facts. First we assume that there is some entity, a being, e.g. "God" --not done in this topic, but it is implied, since "omniscience" has a meaning only if it is an attribute of some entity-- then we attribute imaginary features to it --"omnipotent", "omniscient", etc.-- and then we try to prove, and we actually do, that these are impossible to exist or happen and even maybe the entity itself. In this way we create a "pseudo-paradox", a paradox with unsound foundations. From the moment that we assume the existence of an "omniscient" being, or of a concept of "omniscience", which have no foundation whatsoever, and start "building" on them, what should we expect other than a construct that will fall apart on the first blow of air?

Again, it may be a good "exercise" in modal logic to prove that there's no such a thing as omniscience, but the same process can be described using plain logic: If I say "I know everything", it means that I know every thing, i.e. "all things". But "all things" cannot be defined. They indicate a quantity and this quantity is undefinable. They also indicate a quality, which is also undefinable. What are these things? What do these things consist of? Therefore, my statement "I know everything" is empty, just air. It's just nonsense.

But there are still more questions than answers... — javi2541997

Exactly. And that's why I stopped caring. I suggest you do the same thing, otherwise you might have shamanic nightmares! :grin: