1.There is nothing but knowledge, or knowing is everything [I’m sure you agree].
2.Knowledge is an impossibility [I’ll prove this below Conclusion #1].
3.The universe or reality itself consists of propositions #1 and #2.
4.Propositions #1 and #2 are mutually exclusive.
5.Therefore the universe or reality is an impossibility since its premises cannot coexist.
6.But the universe is real and it exists based on empirical evidence [I’m sure you won’t deny this].
Conclusion #1
Knowledge cannot be but it’s all there is and ever was; therefore, it’s an illusion [in the sense that knowledge is not what it appears to be].
What is knowledge and why it’s impossible: Knowledge is nothing other than the belief This, not that; or only perceived discrimination between space-time events presumed to be nonidentical, without any scientific or otherwise conclusive evidence. [Knowledge is also the antithesis of God or Enlightenment for it is the fundamental rejection of monism or Unity – the principal characteristic of God or the very ideal of religion itself.] This is why:
1.Before we can know something, we have to be able to distinguish it from other things it is not by pointing precisely and exclusively at its (and not something else’s) space-time coordinates.
2.Before we can point to the precise and exclusive space-time coordinates of something, we have to know what it is and that necessitates knowing everything else that it is not.
3.Propositions #1 and #2 presuppose each other (i.e., neither can be realized before the other).
Conclusion #2
Knowledge is a logical impossibility but it is all there is.
Conclusion #3
This world cannot be since it consists of knowledge only but it is.
Conclusion #4
We have no idea what is really going on.
Conclusion #5
The basic human experience consists of the fact that we do not determine a single aspect nor moment of it.
only refers to concepts related to physical things. I know what belief and happiness and calories are, but they have no exclusive space-time co-ordinates. Epistemology has this worrying tendency to treat concrete nouns as the only things known.
no. You assume there is someThing that is waiting to be known. We can (and do) create the knowledge of physical things by demarcating them from their surroundings and defining the area in the demarcation as an X, and then we call other things that closely resemble it Xs. We don’t need to know every country in the world to know where France is and where its borders lie.
I absolutely disagree. Truth is knowledge + justice, love and beauty on a scale from the universal objective to the individual subjective.
Yes, if they were true.
Not me but yes, there are some that would.
You do not show that knowledge is an impossibility, only that we may all be the figment of someone’s (God’s?) imagination, but since as you’ve pointed out the universe is real, that puts the two propositions in contradiction. That the universe is real means that knowledge and the Truth of that reality exists–whether it is possessed or not. I dare say no sentient mortal had knowledge or was aware of the reality of the universe for millions (billions?) of years. Does that mean it didn’t exist?
Though I agree that God is like a sort of megaroot that brings oneness to the universe. I don’t know if god is the antithesis of knowledge. We must be aware that to believe something is everything, you are saying it’s something rather then nothing. But God is not a something which is separate from any other something. Lets try to get to the root of the problem. First of all we say God is something but the idea of something must of come from being able to identify something over something else. To say as you said this, and that. But at the same time with a concept of God we have to say god is not something but we also can’t say he’s nothing. How is it were able to do both? Maybe there are two kinds of something the something that something’s is this, rather then that or the something that something is not nothing. Why do we categorize both as something. Perhaps because all somethings have the something of not being nothing. So we’ve intuitively got the idea that a kind of something isn’t nothing.
We also must realize that God has characteristics even though these are all one structure as their bound my a common root( if you know what I mean , I’ m going into human nature here so that might not be understandable) These characteristics were originally defined as something’s. So is God really in conflict with knowledge if knowing God is a form of knowledge. We could equally say belief in God that as a concept he supports knowledge as he’s made up as something as we could say he’s against knowledge because he is everything. These thing are capable of conflicting because their not physical in a way that conflict. Their physical because their of the brain but their not physical “in a way” that they can conflict. They only “seem” to conflict as that’s what our way of looking at things tells us. It’s is metal conflcit based in a physical non-conflct where the mental resides. (parts of the brain).
Can the brain,the physical neurons, create something new, something that has never been seen or heard before? Just how much do you rely on knoweldge that has been given to you, that has been put in you?
We have so many words that represent conceptions. There’s a never ending verbalization out there, yet there is nothing beyond the words if the the word is the thing. If the word is not the thing, what is it?
Well I don’t want to go into the complications of how I see what words are, and how they relate to things around them. But I will go and say that the word relates to an image or other things (which I won’t say) in the mind such as a tree. The mental image of the tree has a sort of connection to an actual tree in the world. This connection is a non solid connection and is more a matter of perception. It is the connection that the tree sensed “leads” (that’s the connection) to the image of the tree in the mind which can be associated with a particular word. So when you say what is a word, it is the mental image or other things which I won’t say we form in our mind.
As for knowledge. It really depends how you define knowledge. Are our preprogrammed reactions knowledge? I wouldn’t think so and to have preprograms do we have to have the knowledge known for us to have a program that says we will react to “that” knowledge this way. Would the knowledge have to be known in the programming? Not necessarily but the capacity for at least one human would have to be there to attain that knowledge your programmed to react to. Otherwise what would be the point of it. Maybe the point has been lost as the environment changed (discounting random pointless mutations) but it must have had point at some point. I say one human at least because though we all seem to have capacity to do certain things only few of us really have the specific perquisites to do something.
