Wouldn’t you have to be omniscient to know if life was worth living if you were omniscient?
Maybe that’s what happened to God. He couldn’t take it and snuffed himself.
If you were omniscient, could you make yourself not know something? Just for the sake of surprise? (We are getting dangerously theological here. 
)
If you were omniscient, you would know how to make yourself dumb again. But then, you would also know what being surprised feels like, so what is the motivation for being dumb again? Hmmm.
The greater the circle of light, the greater the circumference of the darkness surrounding it.
Next question?
[Criswell]*Future Events such as these will affect you in The Future![/Criswell]
Think about how little we really know about life 2,000 years ago.
Imagine now that, in the year 4006 AD, historians are arguing over whether or not Queen Victoria and Chairman Mao ever met in person, based only on a fragment of a recording of a Stand Up Comedian’s act.
Or perhaps there’s some debate as to whether or not Norwegian Blue parrots really did Pine For The Fjords? It was in a TV show, so it must be true…
Even if Scientists eventally discover everything (and I don’t believe they will- the universe isn’t like a game of Civilisation, with a Tech Tree and victory to whoever gets to Alpha Centauri first), there will always be millenia of human history to discover again…
Damn, so no chance of ploughing all our tax into maintenance and happiness then?
Isn’t it gutting when you speed to the end of a thread to post a reference and find someone has pipped you to it?
I think the best we can hope for is that they successfully clone Elvis and employ him as the Entertainment Advisor. 
We can already predict which cards are most likely to be in the dealer’s deck, and which die roll is most likely to occur. Has this made people stop to consider whether gambling is really worth doing?
Sailboat
Aw, squirrel nuts! Once again Lemur866 beats me to the punch (we didn’t do a Vulcan Mind Meld once, did we?).
I can add only that, if everything were figured out, this limitation in any one person’s ability to grasp that much information would make it impossible for anyone to be sure that everything is known. (I’m talking about sensible people, not those flapdoodles we’ve all known who already know everything.)
Not quite. Gödel showed that any consistent formal system that contains arithmetic must contain statements that it can neither prove nor disprove. Physical theories need not contain all of arithmetic within them. In fact, I would expect that they usually don’t. If that’s true, then physical theory could be complete in the Gödelian sense.