Can We Know Everything?

[Oli]

I recently found out that the amount of different combinations with all of the neurons in our brains is bigger than the amount of atoms in our universe. To me, this shows that our brains our theoretically bigger than the universe, hence we can know everything. It is just our memory that wouldn't be able to remember everything. Or could it? <_<

[Thomas Knierim]

I think yours is a very odd conclusion unless your premise is that every synaptic connection holds knowledge of one atom. And that appears to be quite a strange premise...

What is more, the numbers don't compute. The brain has 500-1000 trillion (=0.5-1 * 10^15) connections, which is an awful lot, but not as many as there are atoms in the universe. Estimates for the atoms in our galaxy alone range between 10^68 and 10^69.

Besides, few things seem quite as certain as the limitations of human knowledge. Remember what Socrates said? ;)

Cheers, Thomas

[Nordac]

Although it would be great to know everything, how would you know when you knew everything, as that is a wide topic...

Also I would hate to be the 1st person to do it, as you would never have a break from people asking you 'Where is the homeworld of some alien race' and stuff like that :angry:

[buzzlightyear1982]

To be burdenedwith the knwledge of the whole world and all it's secrets...how boringand stressful...I would surely kill myself B)

[Anarchistic Fascism]

I too wouldn't want to know everything. Because everything really means everything! That doesn't only mean knowing everything about math or about some language, but it also means everything about a person. That doesn't seem right to me, we would have no privacy.

[Nordac]

Knowing everything, would also give you nothing to acheive in life, so you would be bored into killing yourself...

[Winfried]

It is a great goal to pursue. But as I said earlier, when you have achieved that goal, what's next? :think:

[Nordac]

When you say knowing everything, is that like researching everything? Because to research everything to know it 100% would take a long time on just one topic.

[scameter]

I also wouldn't want to know everything, especially trivial knowledge and bare facts, although I believe that, as David Deutsch said, to understand everything would be most excellent. Nor do I believe it is possible, to know everything or understand everything, because nothing is certain. We could understand all that we perceive perhaps, but even that is extremely limited.

[Smurf]

I recently found out that the amount of different combinations with all of the neurons in our brains is bigger than the amount of atoms in our universe. To me, this shows that our brains our theoretically bigger than the universe, hence we can know everything. It is just our memory that wouldn't be able to remember everything. Or could it?

remember Oli, to know everything one would have to understand nothing :P

[sonrisa]

I know what I know, & I know what I don't know, so therefore I know everything :P

[scameter]

It is a logical fallacy to know what you do not know. And it is unwise to claim that you know anything, much less everything.

[sonrisa]

ya think? :D

[scameter]

I think so.

[sonrisa]

you just think? you don't know?

I know :D

[scameter]

I don't know anything for certain. I speculate and think that I think, but I cannot be undoubtedly certain.

[Oli]

remember Oli, to know everything one would have to understand nothing

:lol: Indeed yes. So when we know nothing, we know everything. My theory on enlightenment was that we completely clear our minds of thought, so virtually, we know nothing. Hence, we know everything.

[Winfried]

:think: Contradictions. they remain...enlighting. "To know everything, one must give up all understanding" and such. How strange a philosophy, that eastern is. (Yes I am aware there are multiple eastern philosophies, but this way it sounded better :P )
When you know nothing, you know nothing. Or you must agree with the "Everything is nothing"-point of view. Which is, in my opinion, quite silly. Yet it gets people thinking. So it's good for something. But to know everything seems quite impossible and even worse, unbearable... Anyone has a Hypodormal-knowledge-absorber? I'm glad it isn't me.

[Smurf]

I know what I know, & I know what I don't know, so therefore I know everything

Know everything that you know of course, perhaps that could be everything there is need to know? perhaps we already know everything yet it is just an illusion to say that there is more out there? We create knowledge to know, without us there is no knowledge of information :unsure:

"To know everything, one must give up all understanding"

like it, that when you understand something that gives way to more knowledge to be uncovered? So to not understand is to not speculate and create more information. Information is an illusion? :unsure:

Anyone has a Hypodormal-knowledge-absorber? I'm glad it isn't me.

your brain would explode? :D

When you know nothing, you know nothing. Or you must agree with the "Everything is nothing"-point of view. Which is, in my opinion, quite silly.

We're just saying in this thread that to know everything one must know nothing, because everything is everything and nothing is a part of everything :P because nothing is a noun and everything constitutes nouns :D

[Winfried]

We're just saying in this thread that to know everything one must know nothing, because everything is everything and nothing is a part of everything because nothing is a noun and everything constitutes nouns
I was mostly reacting to Oli's post: My theory on enlightenment was that we completely clear our minds of thought, so virtually, we know nothing. Hence, we know everything.

your brain would explode?
Most probably, yes. It's one of the qualities of the Hypodormal-knowledge-absorber. I thought you knew this.
To end this post which contributes nothing: "There's a lot of things I don't know. Heck, I could write a book full of things I don't know." Fairly Odd Parents. True wisdom lies in cartoons :mellow:

[buzzlightyear1982]

Yes there is a fountain of wisdom in todays cartoons, I do agree :thumbsup:

[the greek]

CAN we know everything, or MAY we know everything?

I think we may, but we can't. There exists unlimited potentiality in the universe. I also belive potentiality is how the universe came into being in the first place. There was the potential for every thing all along, backdating to the nanosecond before the first instance of the notion of any thing at all. If you can dream it, it pops into existence somewhere. Everything is a composite of:

Some thing
Most things
A few things
Nothing
Every thing

Not always simultaneously. At various points, if we had sufficient time for our brain to process it, we could access any thing. Including every thing. Just not all at once.

[schrodinger]

Oli: I recently found out that the amount of different combinations with all of the neurons in our brains is bigger than the amount of atoms in our universe. To me, this shows that our brains our theoretically bigger than the universe, hence we can know everything. It is just our memory that wouldn't be able to remember everything. Or could it

I am convinced the human brain is not only capable of knowing everything there is to know about this universe, but it is capable of knowing everything there is to know about at least a million other universes. But I doubt we are capable of knowing everything there is to know about everything!
In researching the chemistry of the brain, I have seen applied the current rough estimate of 100 billion neurons. In researching the number of particles in the known universe, I have seen the following estimate: 10^23 stars, each possessing 10^35 grams of mass, for a total of 10^58 grams of mass. Each gram of mass possesses roughly 10^24 protons, for a total of 10^82 protons. This number may be multiplied by the number of other particles, such as electrons and neutrinos, but it should not increase exponentially, that is, the total number of particles is perhaps 6 x 10^83, very roughly.
In considering storage capability of the brain, we should consider not just the number of neurons, but the number of possible connections. For example, in the popular 6-49 lotto there are only 49 numbers, but they appear in a combination of six. It is easy to show that there are a total of 13,983,816 such combinations. (So now you know what the odds are!) Fortunately for the lotto player, the winning numbers do not have to be arranged in any order, it is just a combination of six numbers. If the number of orders is considered, this is called the number of permutations; for 6-49 the number of permutations is 10,068,347,520.
I mention this not because of any inordinate interest in games of chance, but because this same type of calculation is used to compute the data storage capacity of a computer or the human brain. In artificial devices, data is stored in digital words of 8 bits, or one byte. If we have 100 data storage registers, each capable of storing one bit, and we wish to store words of one byte long, we can store 186 billion unique words. To get to the point, with 100 billion neurons, allowing that data is stored in one byte words of 8 bits each, the human brain can store 2.5 x 10^83 unique words, very close to the number of particles in the known universe, as Oli mentioned. However, the order in which neurons fire can be used to create permutations, and the number of permutations in the previous example is 10^88, about a million times more than the number of particles in the known universe!
The implications of this: The human brain is capable of knowing everything there is to know, in 1 million universes equal to our own. It would seem our journey to learn the Truth will be a very long and interesting one! :ph34r:

[Thomas Knierim]

schrodinger: If we have 100 data storage registers, each capable of storing one bit, and we wish to store words of one byte long, we can store 186 billion unique words.

I doubt it.

The number of bytes you can store in a 100-bit register is 100/8 = 12.5, which means 12.5 words.

schrodinger: To get to the point, with 100 billion neurons, allowing that data is stored in one byte words of 8 bits each, the human brain can store 2.5 x 10^83 unique words, very close to the number of particles in the known universe

Wrong calculation again.

Even if we allow the incorrect assumption that neurons operate like bit registers, 100 billion neurons comes up to a storage capacity of 12.5 billion bytes or 11.64 GigaByte.

Cheers, Thomas

[schrodinger]

Thomas: The number of bytes you can store in a 100-bit register is 100/8 = 12.5, which means 12.5 words.

I think you misunderstood the problem. Possibly you are thinking of how many unique words can be stored at the same time? I am only considering the possible number of unique words which can be formulated without regard to the number stored simultaneously. Going back to the 6-49 lotto, if the calculation was as simple as you make out, there are only 49/6 unique combinations, which would mean I would be an enormously wealthy man! The number of unique combinations is determined as follows: There are 49 possibilities for the first number drawn, following which there are 48 possibilities for the second number, 47 for the third, 46 for the fourth, 45 for the fifth, and 44 for the sixth. If we multiply the numbers 49 x 48 x 47 x 46 x 45 x 44 we get 10,068,347,520. However, each possible group of six numbers (combination) can be drawn in different ways depending on which number in the group was drawn first, which was drawn second, and so on. There are 6 choices for the first, 5 for the second, 4 for the third, 3 for the fourth, 2 for the fifth, and 1 for the sixth. Multiply these numbers out to arrive at 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = 720. We then need to divide 10,068,347,520 by 720 to arrive at the figure 13,983,816 as the number of different groups of six numbers.
In the case of 100 registers, I am treating each register as a number, no different from the numbers 1 – 49, but now there are 1 – 100. Instead of a combination of six, I am using eight. Following the exact same mathematical process yields 186 Billion unique words, as I stated. I find nothing unambiguous about mathematics. B)

Thomas: Wrong calculation again.

I don't think so! :boxing:

Thomas: Even if we allow the incorrect assumption that neurons operate like bit registers, 100 billion neurons comes up to a storage capacity of 12.5 billion bytes or 11.64 GigaByte.

First of all, how can you say that it is an "incorrect assumption"?
No-one knows exactly how data is stored or manipulated in the brain. I did not make an assumption, but an allowance that it might be handled in a similar fashion as in artificial computing devices. After all, the human brain created these devices, so they may be similar to the brain itself.

Back to the computation:

Now, following the exact same process with the brain, only using 100 Billion as the number of choices to choose from, and still using words of eight bits, there are 2.48 x 10^83 possible unique words that can be formulated. You are left to do the math yourself, as an exercise of your brain. (Better still, get a good calculator that has probability functions)

[Thomas Knierim]

You said:

schrodinger: The implications of this: The human brain is capable of knowing everything there is to know, in 1 million universes equal to our own.

You supported this by showing that the number of permutations of 100 billion bits is extremely high. Of course it is, but what does this have to do with the concept of knowledge, or even with the concept of storage capacity? The number of binary permutations just shows how many unique states there are, in this case two to the power of 100 billion which is an enormous number, but there can be only one state at a time.

BTW, if you invoke the number of synapses instead of neurons you obtain an even higher number.

If your theory was right, then it would be possible to store the state of the universe on an average size hard disk, which typically has several hundred billion bits capacity. I guess you can see that this is ludicrous, because the hard disk itself is just a tiny part of the universe.

schrodinger: First of all, how can you say that it is an "incorrect assumption"? No-one knows exactly how data is stored or manipulated in the brain.

It is an incorrect assumption, because although we don't know how knowledge is stored in the brain's memory, we still know a lot about neurons, and one thing we do know about neurons is that they are a far cry from a bit register.

In order to store information like in a bit register, a memory neuron would have to sustain its action potential for an indefinite time. However, this is not how neurons behave.

Cheers, Thomas

[schrodinger]

Thomas: If your theory was right, then it would be possible to store the state of the universe on an average size hard disk, which typically has several hundred billion bits capacity. I guess you can see that this is ludicrous, because the hard disk itself is just a tiny part of the universe.

Of course that is ludicrous, but I never stated anything even remotely like that. I have been dealing with numbers such as 10^83, which is quite a 'bit' more that a few hundred billion! :lol:

In any case, this is not a theory, certainly not my theory. I was simply commenting on the very interesting idea proposed by Oli. My computations are correct, BTW, unless you can prove them otherwise. :P

[Thomas Knierim]

schrodinger: I have been dealing with numbers such as 10^83, which is quite a 'bit' more that a few hundred billion!

Yes, but the problem is the way you arrived at this number in the first place. You have confused the notions of storage capacity with that of permutations or possible states. 100 bit have a storage capacity of 12.5 byte. 100 billion bit have a storage capacity of roughly 11.64 GB.

Cheers, Thomas

[sonrisa]

ok I'm a little confused here. Are y'all talking about brains or computers?

[schrodinger]

Thomas: Yes, but the problem is the way you arrived at this number in the first place. You have confused the notions of storage capacity with that of permutations or possible states. 100 bit have a storage capacity of 12.5 byte. 100 billion bit have a storage capacity of roughly 11.64 GB.

OK, point conceded. I did use the phrase “storage capacity”, when in fact I was thinking of processing power. But I think Oli was very clear in his opening statement, in which he mentions the number of possible connections. Likewise, I was the first to use the word “permutations” in describing my calculation. Stated another way: “It can be shown mathematically that the architecture of the human brain is of an even greater magnitude than the number of atomic particles in the known universe. The complexity of architecture is a suggestion of the processing power of a given processor. Therefore, by a great leap of faith, and a long stretch of the imagination, it is possible to conclude that the human brain is capable of processing all the information in the known universe. The above statement should be read under parental guidance, and is not meant to offend any particular faith, race or other distinguishing feature of the reader. In case of disagreement, local laws shall prevail, unless of course they are superceded by any other authority. The author takes no responsibility, for anything real or imagined. Thank You!”

Sonrisa: ok I'm a little confused here. Are y'all talking about brains or computers?

I’m not sure. We have gone through so many er, permutations, that I think it had something to do with the lottery? :uhoh:

[sonrisa]

so did your numbers hit? :D

[Oli]

That is what I should have mentioned, as that is what I actually heard (it was on a documentary about 'Brain Science' and the psychology of hidden talents in our brain). That the number of permutations possible from the neurons in our brain is larger than the known number of particles in the universe. Thanks for clarifying and helping me remember the correct term.

And I agree with what the Greek said. I think we may, but we can't. There exists unlimited potentiality in the universe. I also belive potentiality is how the universe came into being in the first place. There was the potential for every thing all along, backdating to the nanosecond before the first instance of the notion of any thing at all. If you can dream it, it pops into existence somewhere.

Although you dreaming something doesn't necessarily mean it will pop into existence after you've dreamt it; it could already exist and you just think that you have thought of something original. That's quite a scary thought though considering: Everything you can possible imagine has to exist (or have existed) otherwise you mind would be bigger than the universe. (Maybe it is, relating to the original post ;) )

[Smurf]

Although you dreaming something doesn't necessarily mean it will pop into existence after you've dreamt it; it could already exist and you just think that you have thought of something original. That's quite a scary thought though considering: Everything you can possible imagine has to exist (or have existed) otherwise you mind would be bigger than the universe.

Interesting thought Oli, but couldn't it just be that the universe just exists and then we come along and start "creating" things. A tree is just a collection of atoms, but we make it the tree. There is nothing for our mind to compare to. We just have degrees of understanding.

[Thomas Knierim]

Oli: That the number of permutations possible from the neurons in our brain is larger than the known number of particles in the universe.

True, but this is a rather meaningless statement, because likewise the number of possible permutations of grains of sand on an average beach is greater than the (presumed) number of atoms in the universe. -So what?- The point is, that this number of permutations is never actualised. The sand beach will have long been gone before the grains of sand have lined up in all possible configurations. Likewise, the human brain will die long before neurons reach the number of all possible permutations.

Let's assume that the overall brain state changes every milli second, that is one thousand times per second (this much higher than the actual neuron firing rate). Lets further assume that no individual brain state is ever repeated throughout life. Finally let's assume that you will live to the ripe old age of one hundred. In 100 years, the brain will then have actualised 3.14 trillion permutations, i.e. 3.14 * 10^12 possibilities out of 2^10^11, which is only the tiniest fraction of its potential.

Cheers, Thomas

[schrodinger]

Thomas: Let's assume that the overall brain state changes every milli second, that is one thousand times per second (this much higher than the actual neuron firing rate). Lets further assume that no individual brain state is ever repeated throughout life. Finally let's assume that you will live to the ripe old age of one hundred. In 100 years, the brain will then have actualised 3.14 trillion permutations, i.e. 3.14 * 10^12 possibilities of of 2^10^11, which is only the tiniest fraction of its potential.

Let’s put aside, for the moment, the mathematical treatment ( which is woefully simplistic and inadequate ), and consider this from a philosophical view point. Philosophically, that the human brain cannot “know” or encompass the whole universe, is an incredibly narrow point of view. To accept that viewpoint is to accept that there can be no “enlightenment”, no realization of the sphere within the sphere, the infinite within the finite, all hope is lost! :(
Returning to the mathematics, If the brain functioned as you depict, we literally could not walk and talk at the same time, forget about chewing gum! :ph34r: :chatty:
It is inconceivable to think that one permutation represents a change in the entire 100 billion neurons during a one milli-second frame. Only a single neuron needs to change for a permutation to take place. However, because of sampling theory, and the need for analog to digital conversion, ( our senses are all analog) it is logical to use a standard eight-bit byte as the basis for one permutation. Whether we use 8 bits or 316 bits is not important. It is important to realize we are talking about the ultimate multi-tasking processor here.
Now let’s consider compression. Our science of mathematics has advanced a long way since one unit of information represented one number. We can proceed from one number to one variable, then to one function of a variable and on to functions of functions, and it still only takes one byte to represent the more complex forms. This practice, and I stress it is a practice, not a concept, has been advanced much further by the use of tensors, where a single byte can now represent a form which contains a matrix of functions, each function containing many variables. This is just what mathematicians have done by using the power of the brain. Try to imagine, if you can, what the brain is capable of doing on it’s own!
If, by now, you still cannot even imagine how the human brain can “contain” all the known universe, then take heart from this: No man should become a philosopher before the age of forty, and no man should be a mathematician after the age of forty!” :lol:

[Thomas Knierim]

schrodinger: Let’s put aside, for the moment, the mathematical treatment ( which is woefully simplistic and inadequate ), and consider this from a philosophical view point.

The simplistic mathematical treatment just finishes the simplistic thought on which the model was based in the first place, namely that the brain is a computer and that bit permutations have anything to do with knowledge. My intention here is only to show that the idea is flawed from the outset, and that even if the assumptions were right, the numbers don't compute.

In my view, that's where the real value of philosophy lies after all - debunking flawed ideas.

schrodinger: Philosophically, that the human brain cannot “know” or encompass the whole universe, is an incredibly narrow point of view.

It is an incredibly obvious point of view. Since the brain is itself part of the universe it cannot be aware of the universe including itself. Because then it had to be aware of its awareness, and of this it had to be aware, too, ad infinity. It had to be aware not only of its own brain states, but likewise of the states of all other brains that exist. The proposition is so obviously absurd that I am wondering why it needs to be refuted at all. It practically refutes itself.

schrodinger: To accept that viewpoint is to accept that there can be no “enlightenment”...

Why? What has enlightenment to do with it?

schrodinger: Now let’s consider compression.

Unfortunately I neither understand what it has to do with compression or tensors...

Finally, I can't help to ask what good the knowledge of the state of the entire universe would be. I suspect it is an extravagant wish for omniscience, which may be quite human, but honestly what could possibly follow from it? Those parts of the universe that are deterministic can be predicted/computed only with knowledge of deterministic laws and to the degree that they exclude non-linear chaotic effects, while those parts that are non-deterministic cannot be predicted/computed at all.

Cheers, Thomas

[Smurf]

Thank you *bows* :D

[scameter]

But why is that psyche? Everything isn't nothing. If we are speaking logically of course.

[Smurf]

Well, nothing is a part of everything so to understand everything you must know nothing aswell, it is quite logical :P

[buzzlightyear1982]

"Well, nothing is a part of everything so to understand everything you must know nothing aswell, it is quite logical"

Iteresting concept...however, how does one know when they know nothing? For if you know you know nothing than in fact you know something because you know you know nothing :think:

[Thomas Knierim]

Nothingness is a purely noetic term and as such it is quite difficult to grasp. It definitely pushes the limit of thought. The Greek had a concept of the void which was defined differently by different schools. For example, the Eleatic philosophers thought that the void is purely abstract and that it doesn't really exist, whereas Gorgias and the atomists thought that void is equal to non-being and that it does exist. There is also the idea of a receptacle void which is simply spacetime devoid of substance. The Brahmans of the Upanishads sneered at the idea of nothingness and held that nothing can come from nothing, not even the idea of nothingness, and that nothingness is therefore an illusion.

The most literate concept of nothingness is -in my view- the Indian notion of sunyata, which was developed by Nagarjuna in the 2nd century CE. Sunyata is usually translated with emptiness rather than nothingness, although it quite literally means no thing. According to Nagarjuna, things or phenomena are devoid of identity or inherent existence, or "atman", which is to say they are not really things or discrete entities. Instead all phenomena are compound, transient, and conditioned. Hence, sunyata is potentiality and existence as well as non-existence are both within the field of potentiality.

Cheers, Thomas

[scameter]

I agree Thomas entirely, those are very interesting insights. I'm sorry if I can't really add any insight further; you pretty well summed it up. :)

I disagree smurf, nothingness is not apart of everything, as that would be a contradiction in the definitions of the things themselves. Nothing cannot be something; just as something cannot be nothing. Thus they are seperate, even if they are simply conceptual.

[Smurf]

I disagree smurf, nothingness is not apart of everything, as that would be a contradiction in the definitions of the things themselves. Nothing cannot be something; just as something cannot be nothing. Thus they are seperate, even if they are simply conceptual.

hah!

well if nothing is not a part of everything then everything is not everything, logically :D

I am not saying here that they are one and the same, go to "Everything is Nothing" thread for that. But here I am merely stating that if everything is everything then it will have to include nothing or nothingness.

[Smurf]

Error?

No it should be the other way around, that works better
If you are Full (everything) you can still be hungry (nothing)

[Smurf]

Ahh opposites now!
you know there are actually now such things as opposites :P

[buzzlightyear1982]

"no if you are full you are not empty...
if a bowl is s full it is not empty...
and if you are full you are not empty..."

I think you've overlooked the concept of half full or halfe empty...no matter how you look at it nothing, except death, is as certain as full and empty in the scence you've pressented it B)

[Winfried]

Following you, psyche, can we actually grasp the concept of emptiness, nothing or nothingness? For if it is without comparison, how can we define it? If you have something that's full, and we take the opposite of that, don't we have something that's empty? Or am I forgetting something?

Something nice about opposites which almost seems fitting here:
To do something brilliant we do something stupid first, and then do the exact opposite of what we did.
Which can be seen as a claim that absolute brilliance is actually just being stupid :lol:

[scameter]

well if nothing is not a part of everything then everything is not everything, logically

That is it's self illogical. Logically, everything comprises that which is something collectively. If only one thing of substance existed, than it would be everything. Nothing has no substance and is not a thing, and thus is not apart of everything, or something.

I am not saying here that they are one and the same, go to "Everything is Nothing" thread for that. But here I am merely stating that if everything is everything then it will have to include nothing or nothingness.

Which, if you follow logic, I will hope you can find erroneous by what I just said.

you know there are actually now such things as opposites

Computer information and files also do not exist. They are virtual, our utilization of math into electrical patterns to illustrate our thoughts technologically. But, concepts still exist, as does language, and opposites. Even science believes in opposites.

[Michael]

Perhaps we could look at the topic in a slightly different way and consider whether we should know everything or indeed truly do know anything.

This question was presented very forcibly to me when my daughter was 3 and a bit.

We used to have a game. When I was putting her to bed I would reach out my magic hand and take her down a star and put it under her pillow.

The star I would seek for her would be one which had strength or healing for the issues she was dealing with that day. If she was ill, the star would make her feel better. You can extend that to many situations. I should say that while it was a game, I also was serious, sometimes I couldn't find a star that 'felt' right.

One morning at the brealfast table she asked me to reach out my magic hand and take her down a star. I got all serious and said, 'Do you know where the stars are?'

She looked at me with disappointment and a little alarm, put her hand on my arm and very seriously said, 'Daddy don't tell me where the stars are, because if you do you will only take away their magic.'

Immediately I saw that there were important implications and echoes in her requestion(stet) - the Zen Goal of No Goal, the Jewish story of the Tree of Knowledge. The story of the Tower of Babel also appears to have relevance here. I'm sure there are other myths, legends and scriptures which would reflect this idea and if any of you can supply such cross-references I would be grateful.

It seems to me that the really very big question is,are we any better off with all our knowledge. And as I write this I can hear the deluge of responses, reasoning it out in various ways - like think of all the lives saved by antibiotics.

There are so many issues on which you can't argue with the apparent value of knowledge. And yet, and yet within the human psyche there is a deeply held reservation on the issue which lies below our immediate response, but which is there nonetheless.

When I see so many people here of good intend who arel so convinced of the value, rightness, insight of their knowledge and also see that this is so often the fuel of their discord
then I must question of the value of knowledge and ask the question, WHAT IS KNOWLEDGE ?

[scameter]

Well, with your question of are we any better off with our knowledge, I think Colin Wilson made a good point about this in his book The Occult. He said that in our incresing science and our increasing logical acquiring of knowledge, we have limited ourselves to what the ancient Peruvians called huacca, or the unseen forces in nature. We have become narrow and blind to the possibility of something we cannot see and cannot know. Why can't there be something beyond our knowledge, and yet something we can know is there, and even feel is there? We cannot see particles. And yet we trust that they exist. We do so because it makes logical sense based on experiments. But, we still have not seen a particle. Thus, why can't there be something else we haven't seen and experienced, and yet that exists, and that we are capable of knowing and feeling exists?

And, about the last question what is knowledge, I enjoy this question because I enjoy epistemology, but I'm also a skeptic and thus my views on the subject of knowledge are already somewhat established, from a philosophical viewpoint. To me, we cannot know if knowledge exist, or if anything exists because of our inevitable being subjective and the ultimate lack of ability to be objective, contrary to many scientific views. We can think we are objective by making rules and barriers and such, such as in science they use the scientific method, but that does not make it objective. We made something that is entirely unnecessary, i.e. science, gave it a spine the scientific method, then applied it to the reality we experience and call it objective. No, it is narrow; not objective. It is a bit more objective than some things because it lacks opinion, but it usually does not lack opinion. It simply lacks opinion inherently. But, even inherently, it is not objective entirely, or even half way so. It is subjective because we are applying it to the reality we think and believe we experience, whether it exists or not. William James made a good point on this with his views of belief. Through the power of belief, we can experience things illogical, unphysical, unexperiencable, and even true. We can also believe that something exists absolutely, even though we cannot know anything exists for certain. Scientists believe that reality exists, and thus also exists the validity of evidence and their method, but that simply illustrates the power of belief. Christians believe God exists, even though they have never seen or experienced him; once more, power of belief. Scientists would say that their views are based on probability and logic though. But that is irrelevant; they still have belief and faith, for whatever reasons, in something uncertain ultimately.

I hope this helps. :)

[Smurf]

nothingness is not a part of everything but everything is not less everything without nothingness

I think it is actually

Everything - All things or all of a group of things.
or
from wikipedia:
1. All the things

Nothing - noun: No thing; not anything

If nothing is a noun a thing then it has to be a part of everything which is all things

[scameter]

You said: "If nothing is a noun a thing then it has to be a part of everything which is all things" But, that does not comply with the definitions you claim to think are truthful. Nothing is a noun in a lingual context. But we are talking about the things themselves. It says "Everything - All things or all of a group of things.
or
from wikipedia:
1. All the things

Nothing - noun: No thing; not anything"

Thus, everything is the culmination of all things which are things and have substance and are not no-thing. Nothing is a no-thing and is not anything, whereas everything would comprise anythings. They are quite seperate, if not opposite.

[Smurf]

Well that's just it, there is nothing to include :P

but though, nothing is a noun

a noun is a thing

and everything is all things

[Smurf]

Yes!

a noun is a thing Psyche, a NOUN!!! Everything is al things!!!
Is infinity a thing?

and according to your logic, everything is an abstract idea; therefore we do not exist...

[Smurf]

:o

RIGHT!

THAT'S IT!

I thought it would not come to this, but from the very start you, Psyche, have shut down my very argument. I only ask of you to be the understanding person I thought you to be. But it seems that you are just a stuck-up upper-class BRAT!

I am leaving this forum because I cannot handle these silly, without reason personal attacks. I do not know if I will be back -probably not.

Good Day

[Thomas Knierim]

Closed for obvious reasons.