Knowledge! What is it?

[Abrosz]

You should study epistemology.

Oh, I did, extensively. Both in college and afterwards. Epistemology is the “king” in philosophy, way above metaphysics and ethics, or aesthetics.

As to “what is knowledge?” about the best definition the philosphers can come up with, is to define knowledge as “justified true belief, where the justification is not based on a false premise.” Some might argue with some aspects of that, but it always worked for me.

This definition was concocted before there was information theory. And, of course, what is “justification”? And what makes a belief “true”? The answer is obvious. We compare our beliefs with the external reality, and when there is equivalence, we accept that our belief is justified and true.

What about testimony? After all, the vast majority of all your beliefs to which you would assign significant importance came to you (and are grounded in) someone’s testimony.

Testimony is not a primary epistemological method, it is an epistemological shortcut. The only way to establish the validity of a testimonial claim, is to go back to the first claimant (who did not rely on other testimonials) and see how that person came up with that claim. After all, chains of testimonials must have a starting point.

Science is not an ever-self-correcting enterprise??

It is, and that is the beauty of it. The 100%, absolutely certain kind of knowledge only occurs in the axiomatic sciences (and even there they are contingent upon the chosen axioms!), every other explanation is provisional or tentative.

Presumably, we can speak just fine about unicorns and Pegasus’s without their ever having actually existed.

Yes, we have a vivid imagination and a fantasy life. We can come up with all sorts of imaginary beings, and talk about them as if they actually “existed”. But that is not epistemology, it is telling a fairy tale.

 

[Abrosz]

This issue has been discussed throughout all of Western history. Far from being a new insight, it is an ancient problem well-known to many bright minds over the millennia. And some claim to have located a tertium quid . Whether or not you, particularly, accept a third option isn’t relevant. Suffice it to say that various attempts at splitting the horns of the dilemma have been suggested, repeatedly.

Suggested? That is not sufficient. Could anyone ever solve the dilemma? Who, and how?

But, since you brought it up, I can see some “extra” solutions, and they are even worse than the choices enumerated so far. Here they come. We have two entities, the claim and its object. (The reality (A) and God’s knowledge of it. (B) ) They are in perfect sync (allegedly). That can happen in only four ways:

1. (A) causes (B) - or our actions are primary and they cause God’s knowledge (this is open theism - which is rather sensible).
2. (B) causes (A) - God’s knowledge is primary and we simply play it out as good puppets do. Which is a denial of our “free will”.
3. Some unknown, external causative agents causes both (A) and (B).
4. There is a huge, cosmic-size coincidence and as such (A) and (B) just happen to be the same - without any causation.

If you wish to present a solution, you are most welcome. But don’t expect me to “fold” when you say: “this dilemma has been around for a long time and some very wise people suggested a solution”.

Who are those? And what is the solution? The four solutions above exhaust all the possibilities. (Actually the “who” is not important, the “what” would be. )

 

[o_mlly]

We have two entities, the claim and its object. (The reality (A) and God’s knowledge of it. (B) ) They are in perfect sync (allegedly).

The above assumes that divine knowledge and human knowledge are the same. They are not. Humans knowledge is sequential (time-bound) and experiential. Divine knowledge is eternal and non-experiential. This ontological difference makes claims of equivalence impossible, i.e., the two cannot be said to be “in sync” nor can one be said to be the cause of the other.

 

[Wesrock]

As I wrote in my previous post, there’s really multiple topics in play. I’ll try and comment piecemeal when I can. I do have some thoughts in mind on what knowledge is, but there was another thing I wanted to comment on first, and that is how God’s relation to effects as their cause is radically different the a created thing’s relation to its effects as their cause. To be a cause is to be part of the reason or explanation for a thing other than oneself. When a created subject acts upon a created object, the effect the subject produces is a change in the state of that object(s) which is already actual. God as the cause is more fundamental, for he does not act upon already existing things so as to change their states of being. He as the cause is the explanation for their being simpliciter. The difference is so radical that some theologians don’t believe it is appropriate to use the same word (cause) for what created things do and what God does. Other theologians believe we can use the same word, but in an analogous and not univocal way. Insofar as created things are causes, they actively participate in causality with God, insofar as causes they provide explanation for the being (specifically the state of) of their effects, but are not the cause of being simpliciter in that object themselves.

The radical difference must be understood because God does not so much as act on an object as its cause the way we would. He is the reason the object exists at all as the object it is, with the nature it is, with the ends it has. Not as a puppetmaster moving what is already there, but giving the object its intrinsic nature by which it operates. This is more than just a clockmaker making a clock, as a clock as a whole has its operations imposed on it extrinsically, it’s an artifact, a bunch of parts (those bits of parts may have their own intrinsic natures, but not the clock as a whole). Not so certain created substances, such as living beings.

God is the cause of our being, of us having a nature which have operations and will. Those operations and will are voluntary not because they are free in the strictest libertarian sense, but because they stem largely from intrinsic principles (really given to us as God is the cause of our being simpliciter) and not from extrinsic principles (an already created thing being changed by a cause).

I’ve perhaps oversimplified a bit, but I’m trying to convey the radical difference between us as causal agents (changing the state of things to explain what they are) to God as a cause (a cause of the being-of-a-thing simpliciter). We effect things within and according to the natural order. God’s effect is that there is a natural order.

 

[MPat]

In this thread I am interested in the “knowledge” part. What is knowledge? The answer is simple: knowledge is internal information about something. Or using a slightly different verbiage: knowledge is an internal model of the reality.

This is an abstract definition, independent from the “knower”. Of course “knowers” might use different methods to obtain information, but that does not affect the basic point: “knowledge is internalized information”.

Let’s see how you are going to use this definition.

There are numerous and incorrect arguments along these lines: “I am about to give a plate of food to my hungry dog, and I know that the dog will eat it.” And followed by: “my foreknowledge does not force the dog to eat”. In other words: “(fore)knowledge does not impinge on our freedom of action.”

Of course this is nonsense. We do not “KNOW” if the dog will eat that food, it is just a reasonable assumption. The dog might suffer a heart attack, or might be shot before it can reach the food.

So, you do not really use that definition.

For if you applied it, you have to ask if that “the dog will eat that food” is (included in?) “an internal model of the reality”. And, well, it obviously is.

For that matter, under your definition “just a reasonable assumption” is also necessarily knowledge. As is “an unreasonable assumption”. Sometimes even “stuff I just made up”. All of them are information, all of them are an internal model of reality. For your definition does not mention truth in any way.

Maybe you should correct your definition? But let’s remember that you claimed:

What is knowledge? The answer is simple:

After all, if you claim it is so simple, we can demand that you would get it right at the first try.

The whole idea of knowing the future is nonsense. What does not exist cannot be known , it can only be imagined .

You did not show that future does not exist in a required way.

I get an impression that you did not even consider that there are several ways in which something can be said to exist…

If God’s knowledge is primary, then we are simply puppets acting out his knowledge.

You did not demonstrate that “then we are simply puppets”.

 

[whatistrue]

Everything would include nonexistent “things”. Which is simply absurd.

No. If something doesn’t exist, it is not a “thing” and so cannot be included in the list of every “thing”.

 

[Abrosz]

The above assumes that divine knowledge and human knowledge are the same.

If there is a qualitative difference, then one of the uses is unjustified. Pick one start to use a different, more precise word.

They are not. Humans knowledge is sequential (time-bound) and experiential. Divine knowledge is eternal and non-experiential. This ontological difference makes claims of equivalence impossible, i.e., the two cannot be said to be “in sync” nor can one be said to be the cause of the other.

Merely stating it does not make it acceptable. I am talking about “knowledge” as we all understand it, be it “justified true belief”, or “information about something”. I have no idea what this “divine” knowledge might be, and how to substantiate it.

You did not show that future does not exist in a required way.

And I did not show that there are no polka dotted purple-green unicorns either. Our whole language is based upon differentiating between “is”, “was”, “will be”. We experience the present, remember the past, and anticipate the future.

I get an impression that you did not even consider that there are several ways in which something can be said to exist…

Sure I did. There is physical existence and conceptual existence.

 

[whatistrue]

Our whole language is based upon differentiating between “is”, “was”, “will be”.

Really? The whole thing? Not so sure about that.

 

[Abrosz]

I’ll try and comment piecemeal when I can. I do have some thoughts in mind on what knowledge is…

So let’s stick to it, because it is topic of this thread. Please

 

[MPat]

And I did not show that there are no polka dotted purple-green unicorns either. Our whole language is based upon differentiating between “is”, “was”, “will be”. We experience the present, remember the past, and anticipate the future.

Sure I did. There is physical existence and conceptual existence.

Then which way of existence is necessary for knowledge, in your opinion? And, of course, why?

And does future exist in that way?

Likewise, do fictional characters exist in such way? Works of fiction? Laws of nature? Theorems? Natural numbers? Complex numbers? Sets?

 

[Gorgias]

From this it follows that knowledge is only possible for something that exists (or existed). There can be no information about something that does not exist.

Hang on – you seem to have jumped rails, here. Are you saying that the object of knowledge is “something that exists (or existed)”, or are you saying that “knowledge is only possible in the person of a knower who exists (or who existed)”…? If the former, then you’ve made a new claim.

Then you provide a new statement, and I’m not certain I’d agree it’s well-founded: “there can be no information about something that does not exist.” That’s patently false. The dinner I ate last night no longer exists. However, the photo of that dinner that I posted to Facebook exists, and it’s information about that dinner. My memories provide me with information about that dinner, too.

The whole idea of knowing the future is nonsense. What does not exist cannot be known , it can only be imagined .

To God, all of the universe, in its entire existence, from start to finish, exists and is known. We, as humans cannot know what is in our future; for us, it does not exist.

If God knows our actions because we do them, then God’s knowledge is contingent.

God’s knowledge is immediate. He doesn’t “learn” our actions or “experience them through senses”. Therefore… not ‘contingent.’

If God’s knowledge is primary, then we are simply puppets acting out his knowledge.

His knowledge is immediate. I don’t know what you intend to mean by “primary”, but perhaps you’ll tell us. Nevertheless, the fact that God knows what is in our future does not imply that it precedes our act. Therefore, our acts are not a mere “acting out” of previous knowledge.

God’s alleged omniscience renders him to the status of a “married bachelor” - to have mutually contradictory attributes. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.

It’s ok – you’re not. But thanks for thinking of us.

 

[Wesrock]

Wesrock:

I’ll try and comment piecemeal when I can. I do have some thoughts in mind on what knowledge is…

So let’s stick to it, because it is topic of this thread. Please

Well, no, it isn’t the topic of the thread considering you extended your judgments in the first post beyond it. Or do you want to recant all of your following considerations regarding free will, omniscience, and sovereignty that you’ve already stated for the purpose of this topic if you don’t want us to discuss the other ways your conclusions have gone wrong?

 

[Gorgias]

I can see some “extra” solutions, and they are even worse than the choices enumerated so far. Here they come. We have two entities, the claim and its object. (The reality (A) and God’s knowledge of it. (B) ) They are in perfect sync (allegedly). That can happen in only four ways:

1. (A) causes (B) - or our actions are primary and they cause God’s knowledge (this is open theism - which is rather sensible).
2. (B) causes (A) - God’s knowledge is primary and we simply play it out as good puppets do. Which is a denial of our “free will”.
3. Some unknown, external causative agents causes both (A) and (B).
4. There is a huge, cosmic-size coincidence and as such (A) and (B) just happen to be the same - without any causation.

If you wish to present a solution, you are most welcome.

1. God’s knowledge is immediate. It does not ‘cause’ events. God is the agent of primary causation; humans are the agents of secondary causation. Human free will enables persons to cause the acts they perform.

You’re welcome.

BTW, I’m with @VonDerTann – a study of epistemology would be a big help for you here.

“Knowing” things that do not exist is exactly the same kind of absurdity as “being able to do everything”.

To make this claim, you’re going to have to prove the claim that “what we currently perceive of as the ‘future’ does not exist.” There are those who assert a theory of time that directly denies your position.

I think that comes from Scholastic metaphysics. He is simple because He is indivisible, unlike humans who are composite.

I might be mixing up the terminology.

Nope. You’ve got it right.

Our whole language is based upon differentiating between “is”, “was”, “will be”.

English, maybe, but not all languages. It seems your viewpoint is a wee bit myopic…

MPat:

You did not show that future does not exist in a required way.

And I did not show that there are no polka dotted purple-green unicorns either.

The problem is… your assertion hinges on proving what @MPat is asking for you to show, regarding the future. So… start working on it, or else your assertions will look like “polka-dotted purple-green unicorns” to your interlocutors.

 

[Abrosz]

And does future exist in that way?

Future exists as a “potential” not as an “actuality”.

Likewise, do fictional characters exist in such way? Works of fiction? Laws of nature? Theorems? Natural numbers? Complex numbers? Sets?

You confuse physical existence with conceptual existence.

 

[Wesrock]

MPat:

And does future exist in that way?

Future exists as a “potential” not as an “actuality”.

Likewise, do fictional characters exist in such way? Works of fiction? Laws of nature? Theorems? Natural numbers? Complex numbers? Sets?

You confuse physical existence with conceptual existence.

So conceptual existence is a type of existence?

 

[Abrosz]

Then you provide a new statement, and I’m not certain I’d agree it’s well-founded: “there can be no information about something that does not exist.” That’s patently false. The dinner I ate last night no longer exists.

If you wish to argue, at least argue against what was actually said, not some twisted version of it. I said: “exists” or “existed”. How could anyone “know” the contents of book, which has not been written yet, and which might never get written?

To God, all of the universe, in its entire existence, from start to finish, exists and is known.

You need for argue for it. Mere opinion does not count. What does “knowledge” mean in this context? And, of course the future can be known in a fully deterministic universe. As soon as there is any freedom of action, the future ceases to be actual, it is just a potential.

I don’t know what you intend to mean by “primary”, but perhaps you’ll tell us.

Events are primary, the knowledge about them are secondary. It is impossible to “know” something that does not exist or did not exist. The future does not exist as an actuality, only as a potential.

We , as humans cannot know what is in our future; for us, it does not exist.

Existence is not contingent upon the observer. A rock either exists, or does not.

God’s knowledge is immediate .

What does that mean?

There are those who assert a theory of time that directly denies your position.

And what evidence can they present? By the way, there are some theologians who advocate “open theism”. Their opinion is at least commensurate with with what we know about the universe.

English, maybe, but not all languages. It seems your viewpoint is a wee bit myopic…

There are a very few exceptions. I only know about one. In the Hopi language there is only present tense. They simply do not have the concept of “past”. But in every other language the three “tenses” are used as obvious.

 

[Abrosz]

So conceptual existence is a type of existence?

Sure. We have brains and can generalize and extrapolate from physical existence. We are able to form concepts, and we are able fantasize about totally imaginary beings.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I think defining knowledge is not so simple as you make it. Would you accept that knowledge is NOT the internal model of reality, but rather the internal model of reality as we perceive it at the time? Because when I was young, I had the knowledge, for example, that Pluto was a planet in our solar system. Recently, it was decided Pluto is not a planet, and I think that too was reversed again in favor of the planet status of Pluto. Moreover, that kind of knowledge is not first-hand knowledge, but at least second-hand, because it is based on the knowledge of others, namely, astrophysicists. So would you also agree that knowledge need not be first-hand?

 

[Abrosz]

I think defining knowledge is not so simple as you make it. Would you accept that knowledge is NOT the internal model of reality, but rather the internal model of reality as we perceive it at the time?

I have no quarrel with that. Our knowledge of the external reality is always tentative, subject to revision when new evidence pops up. The example of the Pluto is just a question of nomenclature. The celestial body is the same, regardless of what we (or the astrophysicists) CALL it.

 

[meltzerboy2]

That last statement also raises a question in my mind (and that of others). You state that the celestial body called Pluto remains the same regardless of what we call it. That recalls the old saw: “If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it still make a sound?” In other words, does there not have to be a PERCEIVER of the so-called fact in order to speak of knowledge? How do we KNOW that particular tree really made a sound if no one hears the sound? How do we know that Pluto still exists if no one perceives its existence? And even if someone does PERCEIVE the sound of the tree or the existence of Pluto, how do we know whether the perception itself is accurate? Perception implies some degree of subjectivity, not objectivity.