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? — Alkis Piskas

I am mostly with you here. Certainly, 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.
I am now positing a multiplicity of omniscients! What would be the point of two omniscients communicating? This is as bad as 1/0=infinity, your calculator just reports ERROR.

I thought I might try to explain my thinking on the 'exception' issue.
I was thinking about stuff like 'all snow is white,' except for some bits of snow that are not white but in general the rule holds. Some system might seem omniscient but if it's impossible to ask all possible questions then how can omniscience ever be proved?

1. Knowledge entails belief. In other words, if I know p then I believe p. — Michael

Why would it be wrong in modal logic to state knowledge subsumes belief?

2. For everything that is the case, this hypothetical person knows that it is the case. In other words, our hypothetical person is omniscient. — Michael

So, in general, line 2 is just a modal logic premise that it's possible for an omniscient to exist which is why you stated earlier

I am not saying that there is anything that satisfies the second premise — Michael

yes?

3. At least one thing that is the case is not necessarily the case. In other words, it is possibly not the case — Michael

Is this not equivalent to stating that the exception does not prove the rule? Yet in the case of an omniscient it would, to me it would be like demonstrating one system only that has mass but could still travel at light speed in normal space (ie not using a worm hole of some currently sci-fi warp tech etc). You only need to climb Everest once to show it is possible.

4. For at least one thing that is the case, this hypothetical person believes that it is the case and it is possibly not the case. In other words, he could be wrong — Michael

Ok, I agree this last one is much tougher but you describe it very well. I can see the underlying paradoxical logic in play. As you say if 1, 2 and 3 are true then 4 'An omniscient can,' exist can be true.
but if your modal logic ends up in paradox then that is not good logical evidence for the existence of the omniscient, or am I missing something? Do we not end up in the same place as stating that a logical approach to omniscience is an unsuccessful one and you are left with nothing but appeals to esoteric ideas such as the supernatural?
Are you hoping that others will offer an argument that provides stronger evidence for or against the existence of omniscience based on a modal logic approach?

Tell me if I am getting anywhere with:
Kp ≔ x knows p
Bp ≔ x believes p

1. Kp ⊨ Bp (premise)
2. ∀p: Kp (premise)
3. ∃p: ¬□p (premise)
Ignoring 4 for now.

1. Knowing and believing become synonymous in the case of omniscience.
2. If all knowledge is accessible then something (person/transhuman/computer) could become omniscient
3. There exists at least 1 example of omniscience that does not logically contradict itself or its own existence.

I'm not here to teach. — Michael

I typed

those they are attempting to teach oreven create a discussion with. — universeness

Symbolic logical allows us to clarify our terms and better make sense of inferences. — Michael

I agree, once all who can or want to contribute, understand the symbology used in the logic you are presenting. My complaint towards you is a minor one.

It really isn't. It's very basic modal logic — Michael

Once you explain it or a person, understands it based on their own research then sure, it becomes basic, but not until then. A good teacher does not make inaccurate assumptions regarding the previous knowledge of those they are attempting to teach or even create a discussion with. Best to explain as clearly and fully as you can.

'all physical theories, their mathematical expressions apart ought to lend themselves to so simple a description 'that even a child could understand them.'
Albert Einstein.

I would apply this to your descriptions of 'basic modal logic,' if you want to encourage as wide a variety of responses as possible.

I would appreciate it if you could keep on topic and not discuss unrelated issues — Michael

Defending my own typings, I thought I was on topic. Your title is 'The paradox of omniscience,' which I quite clearly responded to. The term omniscience strongly relates to theism and the symbology in your OP is cryptic to say the least. Are there many people on TPF with quite advanced mathematical knowledge? Do you not want to open your OP up to as many members as possible? I assume you do, based on your attempt to provide further explanation in your edits.

If you didn't post it to the Lounge originally, a moderator must have moved it here. — Jamal

Charming, the moderator involved could have at least told me they had done so and told me why.
I am not a fan of monarchistic moderation but you are one of the administrators so I will leave my protest with you. Thanks anyway for informing me.

Ok I see I am better to keep my Computing hat on as you are using ^ as the logical AND operator etc.
I will do my own translation and perhaps comment later if I come up with any points I have not already touched on in what I have already typed.

EDIT: Ok, thanks for the edits you made above it makes things a little clearer.

Ok, but could we have more lay terms please.
So does 1. translate into:
1. For all values of p, Kp (does his mean K is a function or process performed on values of p? Are you using the colon to indicate a ratio?)
2. 3p (3 multiplied by p) :(ratio?) ¬(not) □ (what does this symbol indicate?) p
3. I got bored looking up maths symbols at this stage. I know ^ means to the power of but what does B represent and what are you using the small rhombus shape for?
I taught maths to higher grade level at secondary schools before going full computing and I studied maths pure and applied up to 2nd year uni but I will be rusty to say the least. Perhaps you need someone like @jgill to answer. You would have to explain the maths symbology you use a little more for me to make any useful contribution.

Agreed with all your argument and post — javi2541997

Well, in that case, I hope I am correct. :up:

A selfish one. Or at least someone or something who makes us remember that it is over of all criteria and goes beyond to all the limitations of possibilities. Writing this answer I am acknowledging that this has no sense. I guess this is what a omnipotent looks like in the infinite universe of metaphysics or quantum mechanics — javi2541997

Its been a long time theistic claim that humans cannot approach god or understand god using human intellect or inquiry. Only belief is required and obedience. The epitome of a nefarious sociopolitical tenet, if ever there was one. I remain a fan of the Greek 'cosmos,' the universe is knowable and I refute and reject the omnis (perhaps, apart from omniwoowoo or maybe just omniwoo) and their supernatural connotations, its nothing but omniwoo!

I agree, but I think the inevitable landing zone for all omni posits is called paradox.
I mean paradox as a purely logical proposal (or of propositional logic). Therefore we end up in the zone of neither true or false. To me this is like the measurement problem in quantum mechanics. Only when you make the measurement and the 'wave collapses,' will you get an outcome which is 'true' or 'false' this is what we call reality as far as I can project what that word refers to.
Logic comes from Plato's logos, yes? and that reference has serious religious connotations as do the omni references but to me, they just don't hold up to any definition I can hold as part of 'reality', not now, not in the past and not in the future. You can poke too many holes in the omni posits, especially when they refer to deities. If one is omniscient then how can its creation be flawed? Unless it was deliberate and therefore Christopher Hitchen's claim would be true. You were made sick and commanded to heal yourself on the threat of eternal punishment if you don't. What kind of omniscient monster would create rules like that?
Omnipotent must follow from omniscience if knowledge is power. But you land on paradox straight away with omnipotent. Can an omnipotent create something more powerful that it?
Can an omniscient create new knowledge it never knew before?
Can an omnipresence expand?
Can an omnibenevolent do evil?
They all end in paradox!
So all that can then be claimed is as you and Rocco suggests all omnis cannot be approached via logic or propositional logic to be more precise but then the omnis must be metaphysical or metalogical, 'after logic' or 'beyond logic' so does that mean we must employ a label like omnimetaphysical or omnimetascience or omnimetascient or omnisupernatural? How about omniwoowoo!

The problem is the situation is so nuanced. Religious extremism isn't standing in the middle of a field waiting to be lanced by the Knight of secularism. It's either concentrated in countries whose cultures the secular West has little or no influence over or chaotically distributed in secular countries among non-extremists who have no responsibility for it. And if we're believers in liberal democracies, we're believers in religious freedom. You can't entirely cure liberal democracies of religious fundamentalism without killing the patient along with the disease. — Baden

I accept what you type here in general but it's probably even more nuanced than you suggest.
I think there are many 'cowed secularists' around all concentrations of religious extremists, even when the extremists are powerful enough to claim their country is 'Christian' or 'Islamic. I wouldn't invoke the 'knight' image as I don't see such 'sir' / heraldic images as positive. I see them as aristocratic.
I am for the serfs, the workers, the peasants, the true soldiers of secularism. I think there are a lot of skeptical 'Islamists,' 'Christians' who only comply because they are too afraid not to. I would have probably been too scared to profess my atheism in the days of Giordano Bruno.
I do believe in religious freedom as I believe in free speech but I will still attack fascist ideologies whether secular based or religious based. I will also physically attack those involved, especially if they physically attack us! I think there is ample local resistance anywhere religious extremism exists. I just think it needs to be organised and supported in better ways than it is at present. Evangelicals Evanhellicals have made inroads in many places such as Brazil and parts of Africa because it's easy to dupe desperate people who are desperately poor. Education and economic balance is the only solution to that.

Well, as it was Iran that issued the Fatwa, maybe look to Iran? — Michael

An interesting irony about 'look to Iran,' it has been ever thus, Iran/Iraq was Persia, Mesopotamia etc Parts of Iraq and Syria were Sumeria, Assyria, Babylon etc. You are correct but I think we have spent a great deal of historical effort 'looking at such places.' I so wish many more theists could see through the obvious manipulation of primal human fears which are so clearly evidenced by following the bread crumb trails from those places and those times to the Islamic and Christian myths peddled today as a way to control and direct masses of people. When are we going to reach a point when the majority of the human race stop looking towards such old dead ancient places and start looking towards the final frontier, space! Our future lies there, not in theistic tenets originally sourced in the primal fears and sociopolitical manipulations of the ancients. The guy who stabbed Salman is a Sumerian religious throwback imo, exact same thinking processes. Not exactly a progressive!

I hope you are correct but is there much evidence that theism has progressed in very significant ways in the past 2000 years ? Or is it only secular national and international law that has kept it in check? Religious authority is only tempered by fear of breaking laws that don't allow the incitement of violence or intolerance towards apostates. Orthodox Islam will still call for apostates to be put to death but I think Islamic countries are afraid of global economic sanctions so their religious fervour is tempered somewhat. Remember it was the past popes who were loudest when calling for holy war/crusades and extremists like the branch dividians (of waco texas fame), the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) described as an American hyper-Calvinist hate group, many evanhellical groups etc all seem to be thriving pretty well today. I suppose these groups do just deliver annoying 'bee stings' to the human race when viewed as a totality but too many bee stings can kill you. I think the secular world must in the final analysis remain willing to fight hard against religious extremism when all other alternative non-violent approaches have been tried and have failed.

If omni science includes omni physics? Would it also include omni metaphysics? Omni evil? Omni good? Omni error. Does omniscience suggest knowledge of all possible errors?

I think it's absolutely right to expect loud condemnations from Muslim clerics worldwide. — Baden

Would be great if they did but as I suggested, I think there is as much chance of that as there is of each of them drawing their own rendition of mohamed and publishing all of them in an on-line gallery.

In my atheist opinion, those who follow the Allah fable ride on the coattails of those who follow the Yahweh fable. The Mohamed fables were suggested as delivered by Gabriel after god and his squad got fed up with their first choice of 'chosen people.' The Yahweh followers used to call for the death penalty for all apostates or those who 'blasphemed' against their main character, way before Allah was invented.
Even the Assyrians would kill those who did not accept their pantheon of invented characters. This so-called fatwa is in fact, a very ancient edict.

We all know how easy it is to wind up clockwork extremists and set them toddling off towards their targeted victims. One of these dehumanised robots is bound to get through in the end.
This was just another maniac attack, probably totally organised within the head of the perpetrator alone. But yeah, based on his own conviction that he has been sanctioned to perform this act by his theistic dogma and those who preach/confirmed it in his own head. He probably believes he would be hailed as a moslem/muslim hero at the end of it all. He may be sadly correct but I certainly lay litlle responsibility on the shoulders of everyday shia or sunni, who are themselves victims of theism. I do blame the main authorities of their religion. Salman already won his battle a long time ago in my opinion.

The only hope for individual theists imo, as we move forward with enlightenment is to switch to a belief in something like pantheism or such like. The Yaweh/Christian followers need to admit that the bible is just a collection of ancient myths based on old Assyrian, Sumerian, Phonetician, Egyptian fables which were simply reviewed and updated for the new testament and the Jesus myth. They should also admit that if their god committed or sanctioned events such as ethnic cleansing or smiting guys that stumbled and dropped one end of the ark of the covenant or sending she bears to consume children for calling one of its prophets baldy etc, then their god always was a bit nuts. I would love to see all the imams and leaders of those who follow Allah, draw lots of pictures/illustrations of their main characters and all the main events in their stories including Mohamed's 'night flight to Venus.' but I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Events like the stabbing of Salman in the name of Islam just makes the followers of Islam look like they are still playing catch up with the more enlightened. This foolish act looks desperate and will only make most people in the west become more and more anti-Islamic. Maybe that's exactly what some nefarious forces want. While we are all arguing about the tenets of Islam, the rich are siphoning off more and more resources, while a great number of people can hardly afford to eat and heat.

Again, I just checked and my thread still does not appear in the main page of the forum!

Oh? How did you access this thread? I posted it 28 days ago but it was removed by a moderator or an administrator. I even typed some random characters (the 'kjh' you can see posted 18 days ago) to test it and nothing appeared in the main forum showing all threads. So I assumed it had been removed. So where did you find it?

To answer your query, My use of 'exchange,' particularly referred to angry exchanges between people here on TPF. I included the Jordan Peterson vid and Matt and Jimmy's response to it as an example of the anger and language that YouTube is willing to accept. I consider YouTube to be one of the best resources on the internet but I have not watched every video on it so I don't know how many I would personally disapprove of. I know TPF is not YouTube but I thought it was fair game to compare the two in the way my OP is suggesting.

There is an exchange between Matt, Jimmy and Jordan, in the same way, that there is an exchange between Jordan, twitter and twitter followers/members. People watch and will respond to posted video on YouTube via their own postings on sites like twitter etc, I am sure many response posts to his video will get back to Jordan personally and many of his responses to those posts will get back to the respondees. I am sure you are quite familiar with how these public exchanges work. They do not have to be direct face-to-face exchanges.

Also I do think that preferring “nothingness” is a stupid concept — rossii

Your core sounds like it has strength. You may well conquer your own negatives. For what it's worth to you, I hope you do.

Well, we weren't 'talking,' we were typ.... :yikes: OKAY OKAY! put down your guns guys! Stop pointing them at me :scream: Let's get back to the OP. We have many members who still haven't typed their own personal absolute truths yet! or explained why they don't have any. We have only had a few flavours so far!

You little b — dimosthenis9

Hey! I'm 10 ft tall and mean! :lol: and I'm gonna tell my dada you called me a b******! :naughty:

It's fun debating with you regarding accurate terminology, you defend your positions well. I might also complain about your constant use of the 'he' gender as well :lol: but not now! I am certainly no wordsmith or an example of PC perfection. These can be important issues and absolutely essential (or perhaps subjectively essential) sometimes, but for now, I will take my foot off the pressure build, as requested by @dimosthenis9

:lol: Ok, fair enough. We are not trying to create a cold fusion system here so I will relax on the ABSOLUTE details if you wish. It's your thread!

Btw

whatever you wrote there — dimosthenis9

I typed, I didn't write :rofl: SORRY! I couldn't resist. :halo:

precision of measurement and talk about absolute values have no much meaning anymore, do they? — Alkis Piskas

Oh, they absolutely do, especially when it comes to developing new tech. There are many many examples of 'very precise settings' that will allow a large complicated system to work and any deviation either way and the system fails. Theists even call some such settings 'fine tuning' arguments for god. :roll:
A setting of 6.9999999999998 and the system fails but at 6.99999999999999999992, ITS ALIVE!
Just my own musings, don't panic, no Frankenstein monster on the loose around the hoose quite yet.

As for the subject of quanta, I plead innocent. I have nothing to do with it! :grin: — Alkis Piskas

:up: fair enough, but I suspect that it has everything to do with you!

That's why I re-phrased the self-contradictory, self-refuting "There are no absolute truths" to "Truth is always subjective", which also agrees with itself, since it is itself a subjective statement, Buut it does not mean that there is an absolute truth. — Alkis Piskas

I don't think that helps as the word 'always' means at every moment in time, past, present and future which could make 'truth is always subjective,' an objective truth and thus absolute. Also If 'truth is always subjective' is itself subjective then it may not be true.

I agree with your points on paradox.

:up: Stay with the light side of the force, Ya auld Jedi!

I would suggest that genuine empathy is emotionally challenging for many people, especially if deeply felt but pity is a different harsher offering that entails only a very minor burden on my emotions.

And when you say that such quanta is of and exist within the universe, you mean that they could carry some kind of information also? — dimosthenis9

I want to be careful here. I do raise a small eyebrow of interest towards those who posit a universe in which humans may be components of a future 'universal mind,' a kind of panpsychist style emerging existence. I can envisage a future transhuman state where humans can connect and communicate and perhaps even act as a collective but I am now in the world of pure projection and perhaps even just sci-fi. I am not suggesting that information can be carried from human to human by some yet untapped telepathy, which would be possible if we only understood the quantum mechanics of human consciousness. But if QM is a fundamental part of the universe then it seems intuitive that it would be part of human consciousness. I have to temper this however as cosmologists are forever warning of the dangers of using intuitive thinking when trying to understand the workings of the universe.

I would like to hear more about that. So you think mind function is a quantum procedure like Penrose suggests? — dimosthenis9

Well, I am intrigued by his hypothesis and that of his partner Stuart Hameroff. Did you view my thread on the topic? Consciousness, microtubules and the physics of the brain.

you mean that they could carry some kind of information also? — dimosthenis9

Not as 'fundamental quanta' but yes, when fundamental quanta is combined/processes into information.
IPO (input-process-output) is a CYCLE, which I do think exists at a very base level in the brain as well as at macro levels. I do think phenomena such as superposition, entanglement and quntum tunneling are likely to be employed within human consciousness despite the current unpopularity of Penrose and Hameroff's hypothesis.

After all, they have found examples of quantum phenomena being used in the animal kingdom

However, this also means that if people are happy, they'll choose life.

Conclusion: :chin: — Agent Smith

I would suggest that your conclusion should be simply 'make your choice!'
I cite again (as an atheist) a variant based on what's in Deuteronomy 30:15-20
This from the first episode of Carl Sagan's series Cosmos.
'I lay before thee life and the curse, therefore choose life so that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed.'
You can live life as an hour-to-hour daily chore if you choose and covet death and you will have earned my personal pity. That's all a person can do who loves life. Pity those who are anti-life and just make sure those who live are as protected as they can be from any extreme maniacs who project anti-life into an attraction to commit an atrocity against life.

So, according to this viewpoint, and if I undestood well, since humans belong to the Universe, or better, since humans and the Universe are One, human concepts belong to the Universe and the Universe contains only absolute truths, right? OK. — Alkis Piskas

This is close to my viewpoint but needs some tweaking. I concur with everything except 'The universe contains only absolute truths.' No, the universe probably does contain absolute truths but since we still don't know enough about the detailed structure and working of the universe and we can't make an 'absolute measurement,' then we can only talk about 'relative' absolute truths imo.
The most accurate measure for the speed of light in a vacuum is published as 299 792 458 metres per second but I am sure amongst the science community they have a much more accurate value. I might randomly guestimate it (for fun) at 299 792 458.14159 meters per second. Perhaps new tech equipment will improve this in the future. Could we ever reach an absolute? well, maybe?
We would need to identify some 'change' instant.
At what exact moment will the balance tip?
Can we add one more microgram, picogram, atom, quark(3x10^-30 kg)
How close do we need to get before we can declare a value or property an absolute truth?
I understand your position of 'how can we ever declare anything an absolute, if it has not been tested under every possible condition the universe can present?' At least I think that is your position and I agree but the universe also allows you to 'round measurements up' and declare relative absolutes.
Perhaps we can find common ground there. I think you accept 'relative' absolute truths and I think you suggest we can never do any better. I think we can always get more and more accurate.

Astrophysicists seem pretty sure that if you go smaller than a Planck length then you instantly get a black hole, so the Planck length may be an absolute limit of how small spatial extent can be before a black hole forms.

It is also my view that every thought that has ever formed in the brain of any lifeform which has ever existed or ever will exist is a consequence of the ways in which quanta can combine or interact and all such quanta is of and exists within the universe. In accordance with the OP, I would be prepared to label such a statement as one of my personal absolute truths.

I tried to think of a good example for consideration. I decided to try using one often cited to try to improve common understanding of the concept of quantum entanglement. I have added little bits to it.

Consider someone who has knitted a pair of gloves for themselves so they created a left hand and right hand glove. A relationship is then established between the gloves based on utility or purpose. (left hand, right hand warmth, protection). No information physically passes between the gloves at any point in time except via an observer or observational system that has knowledge of the relationship established by the system which created the gloves.
If one day the owner of the gloves goes to the other side of the world on holiday, opens their suitcase and notices that one glove is missing (lets say it was left in a drawer at home). When the observer confirms that they have the left hand glove, they instantly know, via the relationship between the gloves, that the missing glove (or glove state) is 'right hand'. This knowledge can therefore be known at 'faster than light speed' (quantum entanglement) and the state of the missing glove can be known instantly, regardless of the distance between the two gloves. Information cannot travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum but the system of entanglement means a quantum state can be known instantly based on the concept of relationship or RELATIVITY.
So, could we say that the 'logic state' of the 'left glove, right glove binary relationship is an absolute truth? If you know or can know one state then the state of the other is an absolute truth. I think it is.

The charge of an electron is also an absolute truth from the standpoint that it is negative. All electrons ( or excitations in the electron field) are identical. The charge is -1.602 x 10^ -19 Coulombs but with better measuring equipment that quantity could be even more precise.
I think this is the valid point being made by @Alkis Piskas, no measurement can ever be an absolute and perhaps even the speed of light in a vacuum can be measured more precisely but to me, that is irrelevant as that does not mean an absolute value does not exist, it just means we will never be able to measure it.

I also don't see what relevance the 'paradox card' has.
All paradoxes seem to me to be mathematical stretches of propositional logic, and little more than that.
'The only absolute truth is there are no absolute truths' is just a propositional logic statement it is no evidence at all, than absolute truths don't exist. In the same way that the liars paradox does not prove that a liar or lie's don't exist or the barber's paradox prove that barbers don't exist.
This unfortunately also means that the omnipotent god paradox also does not disprove god exists, but hey ho, the universe does allow for whimsy!

Life forms (microbes) appeared in the Universe a billion of years ago. And from that primitive life animals and humans have been developed. In that sense, life may be said to be part of the Universe.
At the same time, however, we are separate units, independent of the Universe. And the Universe is independent of us. (It existed before us and if we never existed, it would still exist. And it will most probably continue to exist, even if the human race or even all the life in it is extinct.) — Alkis Piskas

Ah, ok, I understand your viewpoint better now. I agree based on the reference frame you are describing but I favour another reference frame based on the law of conservation of energy or energy is neither created or destroyed and the totality of energy in the universe has remained unchanged since it was 'concentrated' as a singularity. Only the form of energy changed as variety combined in every way random happenstance allowed. That's how life, and eventually we, arrived. Lifeforms simply disassemble back into the spare parts they came from after death. Such spare parts then become available again for reuse. There is no stage imo, when a human and the universe become separated. Not at conception, during life or after death. Due to entropy(ageing), we will disassemble and dissipate but our component subatomic constituents are not destroyed. Our individuality is lost as it also disassembles and dissipates (again imo) but newborn humans are a variety of all possible human characters and personalities.

What does this mean? — Tom Storm

Just playing the paradox card.
The only absolute truth is there are no absolute truths.
The only true fact is there are no true facts.

These terms, and the concepts they represent, like any other term, are created by humans. They do not exist in and have no meaning for the Universe. — Alkis Piskas

But humans are of the universe, we are an aspect of the universe made manifest, what we think, invent, debate, kill, save, disassemble, assemble is all in and of the universe. You seem to imply that humans and the universe are separate in some sense, are you suggesting that is so.

The only absolutes I am willing to accept as 'truths' are scientific ones such as:
The speed of light in a vacuum
The mass and charge of an electron
The direction of conduction is from hot to cold
etc.

I worked in education for 30+ years. I also served a 4 year apprenticeship as a painter and decorator.
Teaching was as much of a vocation as it was a job. Painting and decorating was more of a job but I got a lot of personal satisfaction/joy out of converting old dirty, decaying rooms into fresh, maintained, preserved, sanitised, pretty rooms. I cannot begin to express to you the incredible moments I had in my teaching career when I managed to inspire kids and enhanced their interest in and enjoyment of learning.

what it'll become, if all goes well, may have people falling over each other to be given the opportunity to, well, work. — Agent Smith

I think you are absolutely correct. Hopefully, in the future, most of the mundane repetitive jobs will be automated. I also think that personal maintenance may take less and less time in the future as well.
We used to have to wash clothes in the river so washing machines definitely do help.
If more people can access more meaningful, purposeful activities that are based on what people are actually interested in then I think you are correct, people will want to work.
A Universal basic income for all, would make this more feasible.
If we can automate agriculture, manufacturing, recycling etc etc then 'your daily job' can become less about earning money to sustain your existence and more about living a fulfilling life and leaving a legacy which adds to human progress. Such a society can be achieved and its creation would be helped if the anti-life people would help to make it happen and stop being the misanthropes they are.
Maybe a future job title will be 'discussion site contributor,' sounds valid to me!