Is this logic sound, if not, what is the error called?

Fred is assuming to possess knowledge that he does not have regardless of how sure he may appear to sound for his statement is based on nothing more than conjecture. He does not know with any certainty, beyond mere speculation, whether the lottery ticket will be a winner or not.  We will only know if he was right are not when the lottery ticket number is announced. But even if he was correct, it does not mean he really knew in advance unless the whole thing was fixed and someone told him the outcome. 

Well, I think there is no foreknowledge there at all, since [winning] and [not winning] are the only two outcomes. Even if the lottery is not drawn (eg the machine is broken, or Fred dies), that is still a [not winning] outcome.

I think it's a bit like saying "the future will yield [A] or [not A]". Either one must be true.

Yeah, I could have read that a bit more carefully. 

Fred's statement reminds me of a person who would proclaim the following: "Ask me a question on any topic and I will provide you with an answer." 

What is left out in the statement is that the answer may be either right or wrong. 

This kind of thing is actually quite common in this internet age where people speak with confidence on a variety of topics, but don't really know what they are talking about. Much like newspaper columnists. --lol

Nor does Rationalissimus give any reason to think it plausible that foreknowledge is limited to events. Nor is he speaking plausibly. If I know that the White House will be eight stories tall in the year 2066, surely that is foreknowledge. But the White House’s being eight stories tall in 2066 is not an event. 

At some point in 2066, the White House would have become 8 stories tall. It changing heights is the event. Being a certain height would be a status. It's like saying that I will be a father when I am x age. Me becoming a dad is the event.

It should be noted that there are other, overlapping definitions of foreknowledge.

I should also point out that I'm not addressing your arguments in this thread (I cannot speak for others, though. I didn't actually see much of that discussion). I'm not sure who Fred is supposed to be an analogy for - maybe OP knows.

[To Rationalissimus of the Elenchus]

I should also point out that I'm not addressing your arguments in this thread(I cannot speak for others, though. I didn't actually see much of that discussion). I'm not sure who Fred is supposed to be an analogy for - maybe OP knows.

You should “also” point out? In fact, I thank you wholeheartedly for this paragraph of your comment more than any other part because what you have pointed out is especially worth pointing out. Jim introduces his OP with a reference to my conversation with him and had told me that he would be starting a new Question related to our discussion. Understandably, my worry was that each person here might be equating me with Fred, despite Fred being a caricature. I am satisfied to know that you were not addressing my argument. 

At some point in 2066, the White House would have become 8 stories tall. It changing heights is the event. Being a certain height would be a status. It's like saying that I will be a father when I am x age. Me becoming a dad is the event.

Good. I only wanted to argue the view that foreknowledge, I mean conceptually speaking, can be had concerning other things besides events (a future status, for instance, and not just the change itself leading to that status). I starting arguing this because I was disposed to believing that you were aiming at my argument in the other thread, but it turns out that you weren’t. If some authors with Wiki are posting articles to the contrary, I’ll have my truck with them instead of you. 

Thank you, Rationalissimus of the Elenchus

Glad we were able to clear this up. And yeah, I see your point.

[To Kaiden]

Yes, this thread was to open up and expand on this highly complex topic, and invite some responses, since we could not reach agreement on the original thread "True foreknowledge is logically impossible."

You said to me :

"Claiming to know that I will either win or lose or neither win nor lose and that  foreknowledge is impossible  is also contradictory. Essentially, you are contradicting yourself in any instance in which you claim to know what will be the case."

OK, so this is where the tautology comes in. In [either win or lose] or [neither win nor lose], this is exactly the same as the outcomes [A] or [not A]. In other words, it's a statement of truth. No matter what happens in the future, one of those will be true, so it's not foreknowledge. It's not much different than saying "in the future, 2+2=4". That's not foreknowledge either.

Let's test it.

1. The lottery is drawn. You win. [A]
2 .The lottery is drawn. You lose. [A] 
3. The lottery machine is broken. [not A] 
4. A catastrophic cosmic event wipes out the earth and all life [not A]

So, there is no foreknowledge.

So, if you claim that foreknowledge IS logically possible, please give an example. I know you did in the other thread, but if you could briefly repeat it here that would help for anyone following. Thanks!

[To Jim]

Your quotation of me does not display a claim that was part of the argument for the logical possibility of foreknowledge that I gave. Nor does the quote reflect the Answer that I gave in response to the OP in the other thread. Since the quote is neither essential to my argument nor to my Answer to the OP, I don’t want to dwell deeply on it. Having said that, let me not leave your comment hanging. 

The first thing to understand is the nature of my comment. My intention was to reveal a contradiction in your own comments, rather than to personally affirm anything in that quotation. It is you who really has explaining to do. You say that foreknowledge is logically impossible. However, you also say things such as "If the only future outcomes are [A] and [not A], then stating that as foreknowledge is perfectly logical and there is no contradiction involved." It seems to me that your views on foreknowledge are contradictory. I have pointed this out many times and you have not resolved this. Whether or not I myself said that it is conceptually possible to have foreknowledge that I will either win or lose or neither win nor lose the lottery, and whether or not I have a defense, I at least would not be contradicting myself in saying or denying so. A person who, apparently like yourself, asserts F and Not F hardly has business requesting a person who asserts F to defend their position.

[To Kaiden]

"It is you who really has explaining to do."

OK.

"You say that foreknowledge is logically impossible. However, you also say things such as "If the only future outcomes are [A] and [not A], then stating that as foreknowledge is perfectly logical and there is no contradiction involved." It seems to me that your views on foreknowledge are contradictory."

Well, again, this is just a repeat of the same argument, yet again, where no agreement can be reached. You disagree, and think it invokes a contradiction. I don't.

Again, this is ambiguity (at the every least), and the only way to get round this would be to re-word the original argument, so there no room for any misunderstanding. 

In conclusion, I would say that I should have re-worded my first and original OP as this (amendments in italics) :

"This is my argument for why true foreknowledge is logically impossible. NOTE - this is totally different from successful prediction. Foreknowledge is truly KNOWING the outcome of a future event (NOW) , not predicting or guessing it.

"A perfect example of foreknowledge would stating NOW, the winning numbers of the next lottery draw. That foreknowledge could be the actual winning numbers, or any other outcome (the lottery not taking place would be but one of many). In other words, the foreknowledge would need to be the same as the knowledge after the time of the event."

Since the future event has not yet taken place, the outcome is as yet uncreated, and neither has its value, therefore it is not logically possible to know the outcome's value when it does not yet exist.

"The outcome's value cannot both [exist] AND [NOT exist], because that would violate the Law of Non-Contradiction.
.
"Put another way, one would need to be BOTH at [ t=0 ] and NOT [ t=0 ], which would violate the Law of Non-Contradiction."

So there you go!