UPSB v4
Serious Discussion / Knowledge, our lack of it, and how much we don't know
-
Date: Tue, Mar 20 2012 02:27:03
I was thinking and I realized something; there is so much to know that even the smartest person in the world would be lucky to know 0.01% of the information in our universe. Just shows how, while we have made many technological and intellectual advances, we are blissfully ignorant in the grand scheme of things.
-
Date: Tue, Mar 20 2012 04:02:20
so?
-
Date: Tue, Mar 20 2012 04:49:39
well you can argue that you know nothing. because to perceive the world around you, you need to trust that what you see/hear/etc. is actually real. But you have no proof anything is real or that your senses work properly. The only thing you know is that somehow you can think and exist (Descartes)
-
Date: Tue, Mar 20 2012 05:20:19
i think. therefore i am.
-
Date: Tue, Mar 20 2012 06:44:27
Fuse wrote: I was thinking and I realized something; there is so much to know that even the smartest person in the world would be lucky to know 0.01% of the information in our universe. Just shows how, while we have made many technological and intellectual advances, we are blissfully ignorant in the grand scheme of things.
yea but the universe is endless as far as we know now so i don't get the 0.01% because how do you know 0,01% if you don't know the size of the universe? maybe it's less or more. but what about the world, i think the smartest person knows more than like....80% of it :D -
Date: Tue, Mar 20 2012 10:46:35
The 0.01% wasn't an actual number, just an approximation to reflect on how little we do know. By "know" I mean what we have discovered through science and believe to be true. Zombo, you are right; we may know nothing at all (if everything we "knew" was wrong). A bit confusing, but a fun topic to mull over anyway.
-
Date: Tue, Mar 20 2012 11:43:19
It still depends on what knowledge you consider useful. The habits and horoscopes of celebrities for example are nonsense for example. History however, is a different matter altogether.
-
Date: Tue, Mar 20 2012 12:49:13
Fuse wrote: The 0.01% wasn't an actual number, just an approximation to reflect on how little we do know. By "know" I mean what we have discovered through science and believe to be true. Zombo, you are right; we may know nothing at all (if everything we "knew" was wrong). A bit confusing, but a fun topic to mull over anyway.
then gods not real. but every one knows that -
Date: Tue, Mar 20 2012 12:54:41
RicLu98 wrote: i think. therefore i am.
So by thinking I don't exist I don't? Nope doesn't work I already thought that. I was thinking like if life was just a dream and one day I'm gonna wake up. Life is reality, to state the obvious questioning it will not change that. -
Date: Tue, Mar 20 2012 18:05:36
juggalo666666 wrote: So by thinking I don't exist I don't? Nope doesn't work I already thought that.
It's "I think therefore I am" not "I think I exist therefore I am." the fact that you think you don't exist proves you exist. -
Date: Tue, Mar 20 2012 18:08:20
What's the point in having so much knowledge if you can't apply it.
-
Date: Tue, Mar 20 2012 18:26:18
neXus wrote: It's "I think therefore I am" not "I think I exist therefore I am." the fact that you think you don't exist proves you exist.
But if I exist how does that prove my non-existing? -
Date: Sat, Mar 24 2012 00:58:50
juggalo666666 wrote: But if I exist how does that prove my non-existing?
1≠2 -
Date: Sat, Mar 24 2012 01:01:18
Well there are other things that we can "know" even assuming tabula rasa squares have 4 sides, by their definition truisms don't require our senses, anything that can be defined with formal logic with 0 assumptions we also "know" as true
-
Date: Sun, Apr 15 2012 03:33:27
we do not know even .1% of everything in our world. Even the smartest person in the world doesn't know my address or someone else's name. Information is limitless, our minds are limited. Also there might be things that we cannot even imagine. How can we think of a new color if we cannot see it? How can we perceive a 4th dimension (or 5th if you consider time to be the 4th dimension) if we do not live in it? As humans we will always know close to nothing
-
Date: Sun, Apr 15 2012 03:37:03
midniteferret wrote: Information is limitless,
This is objectively untrue, "information" is directly related to entropy which isn't infinite -
Date: Sun, Apr 15 2012 14:26:51
But wouldn't this be if the universe was indeed finite. How do we know that the universe is not infinite? Or is it because entropy is an increasing quantity and infinity can't be increasing or else it wouldn't be infinite.
strat1227 wrote: This is objectively untrue, "information" is directly related to entropy which isn't infinite
-
Date: Sun, Apr 15 2012 15:25:03
Awesome wrote: But wouldn't this be if the universe was indeed finite. How do we know that the universe is not infinite? Or is it because entropy is an increasing quantity and infinity can't be increasing or else it wouldn't be infinite.
The increasing part is the important part. But also we know the universe is expanding right now, so it's not infinite -
Date: Sun, Apr 15 2012 15:31:28
@midniteferret, that is what I was going for. Information isn't limitless, just that there is so much of it. If the universe is indeed expanding, then there is more and more information to be known. If you knew everything that was going on at every single moment in the entire universe (including people's thoughts) and all of the information in the universe, you would basically be a god/invincible.
-
Date: Sun, Apr 15 2012 16:24:20
Fuse wrote: @midniteferret, that is what I was going for. Information isn't limitless, just that there is so much of it. If the universe is indeed expanding, then there is more and more information to be known. If you knew everything that was going on at every single moment in the entire universe (including people's thoughts) and all of the information in the universe, you would basically be a god/invincible.
Time is infinite in either direction and thus there is infinite amount of knowlege to be had -
Date: Tue, Apr 17 2012 14:47:05
The amount of matter in the universe is most likely finite while the space it exists in would most likely be infinite as far as I know.....
-
Date: Wed, Jun 13 2012 15:04:44
Plato states that everyone is born with innate knowledge of everything, and that gaining knowledge was a form of recollection. But I don't believe that, I posted it because you might find it interesting.
-
Date: Wed, Jun 13 2012 19:22:59
That seems a bit crazy to me. You are born with the knowledge to breath and keep yourself alive, you LEARN everything else really.
-
Date: Wed, Jun 13 2012 19:47:24
Fuse wrote: That seems a bit crazy to me. You are born with the knowledge to breath and keep yourself alive, you LEARN everything else really.
I know right, I can't get my head around that concept. Seems ridiculous to me. -
Date: Fri, Jun 22 2012 21:54:22
Well I guess you could add a few other points that could contribute. with us knowing how to breathe at birth is kind of an interesting thought since after being born, the doctor actually slaps a baby on its butt. This being painful to the newborn causes them to cry (inbred natural defense mechanism) which in turn forces them to inhale more air in order to continue crying. Now, some things aren't quite learned, especially in the case of animals. We as humans consider ourselves to have surpassed all other animals in terms of knowledgeability; we have created information that needs to be shared. Animals however don't quite have this, yet they know all of their survival instincts anyways. so what Plato is somewhat implying is that every death leads to a rebirth and a recollection of information passed from the previous life. It's an interesting but somewhat difficult to prove philosophical point. Also, humans don't neccesarily know nothing but at the same time we certainly don't know everything; especially of whats important. for example, names. My actual name is Chris, but that really doesn't mean anything. On here I call myself Deveroux but that doesn't say much about who I am either. It's just this lack of understanding that this labeling is completely unnecessary since they mean nothing of what we are. Sure when people are called deragatory terms thats a bit defining but it's also just a matter of opinion. The fact that so many can't even comprehend something as simple as this proves our lack of knowledge. Also for additional discussion, I believe that people who are considered 'insane' actually have a better understanding for all this knowledge surrounding us than we do. For example, Van Gogh is now known worldwide masterpieces that could only be done by an artistic genius. I find that this was becuase of his greater sense of perceptibility. The interesting thing is, Van Gogh was considered mentally unstable and insane by others in his time. I personally see a connection between the two
-
Date: Sat, Jun 23 2012 00:33:31
Lol that's only true of a VERY small subset of a VERY large group though. Yes some insane people are extremely talented. But the vast majority are just whacko lol. Just like some sane people are extremely talented. But most aren't. I don't see any connection
-
Date: Sat, Jun 23 2012 03:28:55
It seems that there are a lot of super smart insane people because they seem interesting and they get "popular" or famous or whatnot. I have to agree with you strat.
-
Date: Sat, Jun 23 2012 11:20:30
Supergirl wrote: I know right, I can't get my head around that concept. Seems ridiculous to me.
You know right? This debate has been going on amongst people who aren't retarded. It's called behaviorist versus nativist thought with respect to child development. As I understand it, neither one has quite yet prevailed though nativism has been getting popular with the rise of Naom Chomsky. (or however the fuck his name is spelled) The problem with this entire thread is that it amounts to a question that was raised by the Greek nearly three thousand years ago and is as of yet not resolved. The question is: "What constitutes knowledge?" And though the Greeks would have us believe knowledge is justified true belief (i.e. scientific knowledge) and the German idealists would have us believe it's a thought in the mind of God, neither philosophy nor science has as yet provided a good working definition for that simple, age-old question. Even as recently as the past century something called the "Gettier Problem" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem) threw a whole new knot into the mix of epistemic tangles. In short, some of the smartest men in history have devoted years to merely defining knowledge and here we are blabbing about the approximate percentage of what we know in relation to all there is to know. The field of study is called epistemology. As far as philosophy is concerned, it's probably the stickiest and most paradox-ridden branch of philosophy and logic out there. (including its similar sibling paradoxes in set theory) JTB? Post Gettier madness?! THE POSTMODERN MIND AND THE END OF THE WORLDDDDDDD