Thread: How Knowledge Works

HOW KNOWLEDGE WORKS


BLUE: All matters that the observer has no conclusion about.

YELLOW: The scope of all that the observer has concluded as true. (Scope of belief.)
-Everything within the yellow must falll within either red or green. It cannot fall in both. It cannot fall in neither.

GREEN: Everything the observer has concluded as true that is also true in actuality.

RED: Everything the observer has concluded as true that is not true in actuality.


There is logic, metalogic, and illogic. The mind is only capable of comprehending logical concepts. Metalogic is any concept that is beyond logic such as infinity and paradoxes. The mind is incapable of comprehending metalogical concepts. Metalogical concepts can only be contemplated/discussed by approaching them as operating outside of logical parameters. Illogic is an approach to any subject matter with complete disregard to logic. Illogic cannot be contemplated or discussed.

Logic cannot be presumed. One must state (acknowledge) in advance that one is operating within the parameters of logic.


All statements are either true or false. A statement cannot be both true and false at the same time. A statement cannot be neither true or false at the same time.

Truth is independent of human perception/observation/acknowledgement. It is logically unsound for truth to be dependent on the observer.


An observer can only have 2 states on all matters. Belief and inconclusion.
1. Belief is a conclusion by an observer that a matter is true. If the observer concludes X is true, then the observer has belief that X is true.
2. Inconclusion is a lack of conclusion by an observer regarding a matter.

An observer cannot voluntarily choose a belief. An observer can only be involuntarily compelled to a belief.
Evidence/Proof/Justification/Verification/Validation/Substantiation is ANYTHING that compels an observer to arrive at a conclusion on a matter.


There are 2 forms of belief. Knowledge and Misconception. Knowledge is a belief that corresponds to actuality. Misconception is a belief that does not correspond to actuality.
-If observer believes X is true.
-If X is true.
-Then observer has knowledge that X is true.

-If observer believes X is true.
-If X is not true.
-Then observer has misconception that X is true.

Belief must be either knowledge or misconception. Belief cannot be both knowledge and misconception. Belief cannot be neither knowledge or misconception.


If an observer believes a matter to be true, then the observer must claim to hold knowledge that the matter is true. The observer cannot claim to hold misconception that the matter is true. Observer cannot claim knowledge or misconception regarding a matter that an observer considers inconclusive.

OBSERVER: "I have concluded X is true. Thus, I have the belief that X is true. X is true. Because X is true, and I have belief X is true, then I have knowledge X is true."


Scope of belief is the body of all that the observer has concluded as true. Anything that the observer considers inconclusive falls outside of the observer’s scope of belief. Any matter than an observer concludes as true can only lie within the observer’s scope of belief.

"To my understanding…"
"As far as I know…"
"To my knowledge…"
“I believe…”
“In my opinion…”
These all mean the same thing “Within my scope of belief…”.
“IMO” <= Abbreviation for scope of belief.

These statements are always automatically implied for all statements and observer makes whether the observer speaks it out loud or not.
“X is true.” = “IMO X is true.”


Realization occurs when an observer is compelled to switch from a belief to that belief’s antithesis. “I believed X is true” => “I now believe not X is true”. When an observer has a belief, there is no such thing as possibility/impossibility of misconception. Just as an observer may/may not be compelled to a conclusion, the observer may/may not be compelled to a conclusion in antithesis of their belief.

Thus, there is no such thing as being open to change in position or not being open to change in position. If an observer is compelled to an antithesis position, the observer must switch to from their position to the antithesis position.

Nice graph, lixluke, colorful and illustrative, if one doesn't mind the inartful categorizations.

Look Luke, evolution has artfully designed the way we humans come to a decision. You see, we might have all kinds of ambient feeings about our good friends the magnificent lions, but if one is chasing us and (thank the Lord) we have a gun, we will compassionately shoot him stone...cold...dead.

My point is that we human beings hold ambivalent ideas about what is; (and rightly so) until we feel that we MUST speak out to protect our own cute butts.

And so far, this wishee-washee behavior has kept us from being eaten by hungry, but stupid, semantical lions.

I would have made the chart better on fireworks or vue, but I was just throwing something together on powerpoint.

I think this is important because I have for years been going into discussions assuming people understood how kowledge works and how it relates to linguistics. But I feel it is important to make things clear.

For example, when a person says "I don't know" he is actually saying "I have not arrived at a conclusion on the matter".

It is an interesting perpspective, presenting knowledge as a pie. But I think you have missed out several important points - and made a couple of errors. If you were to represent knowledge in three dimensions then this could be a plane slice through the knowledge sphere. (Lets be careful not to call it the noosphere. :wink: ) Here are some points, not necessarily all of equal weight, that you could consider.

A. You have not defined truth, knowledge, or belief.
B. There is Truth which you have no conclusion on that you are aware of and Truth of which you have no conclusion on because you do not know it exists.
C.Within the set of knowledge of which the observer has not formed a conclusion there are subdivisions wherein the observer has not desire to form a conclusion, or in which a conclusion cannot be formed.
D. Knowledge may be subdivided into tacit knowledge and explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is hard, factual, objective, easily codified and accessible. Tacit knowledge is personal, subjective, experience and cultural based, and difficult to capture.
E. We should recognise the spectrum: data=>information=>knowledge=>wisdom.
F. You say "The mind is only capable of comprehending logical concepts." This fits neatly into the red box on your diagram.
G. Perhaps you are red-green colour blind. (An attempt at humour: please don't take offense.)
H. You say "Illogic cannot be contemplated or discussed. " Can you explain how you were able to define and discuss it?
I. You say "Logic cannot be presumed. One must state (acknowledge) in advance that one is operating within the parameters of logic."
Can I therefore presume, since you did not state the use of logic in advance that in this thread you are talking illogically?
J. You say " A statement cannot be both true and false at the same time."
Tell that to those studying quantum mechanics and wave-particle duality.
K. You say "It is logically unsound for truth to be dependent on the observer."
I say . Is this a prelude to an attack on quantum mechanics? Do we all have to leave the forest by the nearest available exit and await the absence of the sound of falling trees?
L. As previously noted there are four, not two states an observer can have on all matters: belief and inconclusion are your two. I add ignorance and indifference.
M. You say "An observer cannot voluntarily choose a belief." I do so every day, therefore your belief is false. (You could choose to change it.)
N. Your subsequent observations are by nullified the fundamental error exposed in point M.

Originally Posted by John Galt

J. You say " A statement cannot be both true and false at the same time."
Tell that to those studying quantum mechanics and wave-particle duality.

John, my physics education ended pretty much where we were shown the double-slit experiment. Not because I did not believe my tutor, but because I never understood her explanation of what the experiment demonstrated; I never understood how the conclusion was justified by the demonstration.

However, in your point above you seem to be suggesting that wave-particle duality is contra-indicative of user lixluke's claim that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time. Given the limitations of my own physics education, I thought the experiment showed that both cases were simultaneously true. In other words, there is no false case and so your example does not seem to meet the criteria?

(Please note, the question mark indicates that I am asking a question)

Originally Posted by numbers

Given the limitations of my own physics education, I thought the experiment showed that both cases were simultaneously true. In other words, there is no false case and so your example does not seem to meet the criteria?

I agree completely. I also disagree completely.
My physics education is likely no better and probably much worse than yours. (I don't think I have ever actually seen the double slit experiment, but I have read enough about it that the comments and conclusions form an interference pattern in my mind.)
The experiment demonstrates - as I understand it - that light cannot consist of particles. It also demonstrates that it does. It demonstrates that light is not a wave - and it is a wave.
So it demonstrates that both are true, but that they are also both false. We opt for the former, since clearly light is.

(If that sounded confusing, then you may have grasped where I am coming from on this.)

I have defined knowledge and belief. I am not discussing theoretical physics that is yet still very primitive. Those experiments have a long way to go. It isn't about particles and waves. I would say that everything fundementally consists of foreces.

There are only 2 states an observer can have on a particular matter.
1. State of conclusion on the matter. (Belief.)
2. No conclusion on the matter. (Inconclusion.) Any matter an observer is unaware of falls within #2.

Ignorance and indifference don't fall outside of the 2 states. All observers can only be characterized by those 2 states on all matters.

Knowledge as defined above cannot be subdivided.

As you wish.