It’s possible that looking at how you’d test something which claims to be omniscience would give some pointers to finding unknown unknowns and unknown knowns.
An unknowable unknown: I shot a rocket across the cosmic horizon. On the rocket was a qGrenade set to detonate on a timer. Did my Schrödinger’s rocket explode when the timer went off in my Everett branch?
Whether or not it’s meaningful, it’s certainly useful, especially by Phillip K. Dick’s definition: “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
It’s possible that looking at how you’d test something which claims to be omniscience would give some pointers to finding unknown unknowns and unknown knowns.
Or also show you if there are unknowable unknowns?
An unknowable unknown: I shot a rocket across the cosmic horizon. On the rocket was a qGrenade set to detonate on a timer. Did my Schrödinger’s rocket explode when the timer went off in my Everett branch?
I don’t see that decoherence would occur in that case.
This once again explains why “reality” is a largely meaningless concept.
Wow. I maybe understand where you are alluding to, but I’m not sure I’m reverse engineering the thoughts right. Explain for me?
Whether or not it’s meaningful, it’s certainly useful, especially by Phillip K. Dick’s definition: “Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.”
I’m pretty sure unknowability would have to be proven rather than shown.