Is knowledge Infinite?

[Deepak Kapur]

1. Some people say that an eternal God/mind is the creator of this universe, i.e the universe is contingent.

 

2. Some others say that some fundamental particle (s) has have always existed and it's their interplay, we call universe.

 

3. Still, some others say that our universe arose spontaneously from nothing.

 

 

In my view, each of the above scenario needs explanation.

 

Be it Eternal God, eternal matter or spontaneous creation, one can always ask,

 

What is the mechanism that led to eternal God, eternal matter or spontaneous creation?

 

If we get hold of some mechanism to explain the above points, again the question arises as to what is the mechanism of the mechanism that we have found out to explain the above three positions.

 

In the light of what is mentioned above, can we say that,

 

'Knowledge is infinite as there can be no end to our questions'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[John Cuthber]

'Knowledge is infinite as there can be no end to our questions'

Non sequiteur.

There may well be a limit to the answers.

Also, in a finite universe there's only so much stuff to know. the amount might be huge, but it's finite.

Also, with a finite number of people each knowing a finite amount (with their finite brains) there's no possibility for infinite knowledge.

[`hýsøŕ]

if you count mathematical results as knowledge, then i think you can have an infinite amount of knowledge, because maths is pretty much endless as you can just think of another question to solve without limit.

[Tim the plumber]

if you count mathematical results as knowledge, then i think you can have an infinite amount of knowledge, because maths is pretty much endless as you can just think of another question to solve without limit.

 

Yes, but, is that knowledge or just meaningless data?

 

I think the definition of what is knowledge or information will have to be very well defined for this to be resolved at which point it will be answered.

[Ten oz]

Our collective knowledge as a species may possibly be infinite but individual knowledge is not. We all die and as such have a limit on what we can learn and experience. Even if our collective knowledge were infinite no one would ever be able to process so much as a millionth of it in a lifetime considering that every portion of something infinite is by default infinite or at the very least inconceivably large.

[John Cuthber]

if you count mathematical results as knowledge, then i think you can have an infinite amount of knowledge, because maths is pretty much endless as you can just think of another question to solve without limit.

By whom would these results be known?

Unless they are known they are not knowledge.

Since thereis a limit to the number of people, there is a limit to knowledge.

[Deepak Kapur]

1. Some people say that an eternal God/mind is the creator of this universe, i.e the universe is contingent.

 

2. Some others say that some fundamental particle (s) has have always existed and it's their interplay, we call universe.

 

3. Still, some others say that our universe arose spontaneously from nothing.

 

 

In my view, each of the above scenario needs explanation.

 

Be it Eternal God, eternal matter or spontaneous creation, one can always ask,

 

What is the mechanism that led to eternal God, eternal matter or spontaneous creation?

 

If we get hold of some mechanism to explain the above points, again the question arises as to what is the mechanism of the mechanism that we have found out to explain the above three positions.

 

In the light of what is mentioned above, can we say that,

 

'Knowledge is infinite as there can be no end to our questions'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, I wanted to say that the so called 'big questions'-which are considered to the source of all that there is- are also infinite.

 

 

So, in principle, one can keep on asking logical questions about the origin of the universe ad infinitum, whatever may be our answer regarding its origin.

 

 

If say after say n questions, we start getting the same answer again and again, our next question can be,

 

Why is it that we are getting the same answer again and again? What is the mechanism behind this sameness of answers?

 

 

It's not about the finiteness of human life, its about the logical endlessness of the valid questions that can be asked.

Edited May 31, 2014 by Deepak Kapur

[Nicholas Kang]

Knowledge is infinite? It is just an illusion. In the future, when one day, problems related to the origin and end of the universe are being solved, then knowledge would be finite because everything will just revolved around the universe and not beyond it, unless there is multiverse.

[Ophiolite]

While knowledge might be infinite, there is good evidence that wisdom is in short supply.

[PeterJ]

I don't know the answer, of course. But the sages tell us that all knowledge is possible for us. The details may be endless but the important stuff is what matters, and I do not believe that is endless. The trick would be to learn the principles, and then the details fall into place. The Vedas say, 'the voidness of one thing is the voidness of them all'. In other words, if we see the voidness of one phenomenon then we will see the voidness of them all. If we see the truth of one phenomenon we would not need to go look at all the others,. we'd just know about them already, because we understand what a phenomenon actually is. The intrinsic nature of an infinity of phenomenon become known by a single vision, and compressed into a single piece of knowledge. Likewise, if we understand gravity we do not to observe every apple to make sure it falls down. So the infinity of possible knowledge is maybe a slight red herring. The better question would be, Can we know everything important that we want to know?' I believe the answer is yes but I wouldn't want to get into the reasons here. Optimistically, or factually, depending on what we believe, the Vedas state 'The Unknown is not the Unknowable'.

Edited June 13, 2014 by PeterJ

[John Cuthber]

I don't know the answer, of course. But the sages tell us that all knowledge is possible for us.

Then we need better sages because it's clear that we can't know everything.

It's plausible that we might know everything we need to know (though I doubt that), but we will never know everything we want to know.

Edited June 13, 2014 by John Cuthber

[PeterJ]

You don't know this, so you cannot simply state it. It is clear to you that we cannot know everything we want to know. Fair enough. It must seem odd to you that it is not clear to everyone. But this is all personal stuff. We should be dealing in facts.

Edited June 13, 2014 by PeterJ

[John Cuthber]

You don't know this, so you cannot simply state it. It is clear to you that we cannot know everything we want to know. Fair enough. It must seem odd to you that it is not clear to everyone. But this is all personal stuff. We should be dealing in facts.

Fine, let's deal in facts.

The sages are factually wrong for the reasons I gave earlier and so you should not have brought them into the discussion.

 

I observe that humans always seem (at least thus far, and I see no evidence of a change) to want to know more.

That is, for example, the reason for web sites like this one.

And so I deduce that , since people always wish to know more, but logically can not know an indefinite amount (given their finite brains), "we will never know everything we want to know.".

As I said.

 

So, yes, it is indeed, odd to me that this is not clear to people- even after the evidence is presented to them.

Edited June 14, 2014 by John Cuthber

[PeterJ]

I bow to your vast knowledge, which clearly cannot be further increased.

[John Cuthber]

I bow to your vast knowledge, which clearly cannot be further increased.

Of course it can be increased, but not infinitely (for example, it obviously will not be increasing in a hundred years' time).

That's the whole point.

[Fred Champion]

What can a caterpillar know of flight? Even if he were to recognize it, would it be important for him to learn about it? Hard questions since we don't know much about his intellect. Is what we might call his "race memories" actually hard wired into him or are they something that grows within him depending on the quantity and quality of nourishment he consumes?

 

Is his identity constant, even through his transformation?

Back to the topic. In order to know everything, one would have to know history - in detail. Doesn't seem possible. Without a means of instantaneous communication we cannot know the present everywhere. We are limited to knowing what has happened and cannot know what is. As Hume said, we can know only what we experience. Experience is local; knowledge is local - and limited.

 

Could we know more, or all, after some posited transformation? I think the caterpillar would have to know what it means to be a butterfly in order to answer that question.

[PeterJ]

Perhaps, John, your knowledge will increase to the point that you realise that you don't actually know whether you can know all that you want to know. Indeed, you are arguing that you never will know. Claiming to know that you cannot know whether you can know something is confusing.

 

We tend to assume we need new knowledge for our knowledge to increase. But the realisation of what we not know is often the most useful kind of increase in knowledge.

[John Cuthber]

Perhaps, John, your knowledge will increase to the point that you realise that you don't actually know whether you can know all that you want to know. Indeed, you are arguing that you never will know. Claiming to know that you cannot know whether you can know something is confusing.

 

We tend to assume we need new knowledge for our knowledge to increase. But the realisation of what we not know is often the most useful kind of increase in knowledge.

You are now arguing against yourself.

You say "the sages tell us that all knowledge is possible for us"

and you say "...you realise that you don't actually know...."

 

Perhaps you should stop now, because it's clear that nobody will gain a lot of knowledge from reading your self-contradictory posts.

[PeterJ]

Yes! You've spotted the difference. I make no knowledge claim. You make a strong one. I merely repeat what has been said by some, and note that what they say in unfalsifiable. This is a perfectly safe and reasonable thing to do. To simply state that they are wrong is to make a false knowledge claim and to abandon the facts for mere opinion.

 

Do you see? It is not a question of who is right about the central question. It is a question of sticking to the facts. We cannot even begin to discuss the issue seriously if we do not start by conceding what we do and do not know.

Edited June 14, 2014 by PeterJ

[John Cuthber]

Yes! You've spotted the difference. I make no knowledge claim. You make a strong one. I merely repeat what has been said by some, and note that what they say in unfalsifiable. This is a perfectly safe and reasonable thing to do. To simply state that they are wrong is to make a false knowledge claim and to abandon the facts for mere opinion.

 

Do you see? It is not a question of who is right about the central question. It is a question of sticking to the facts. We cannot even begin to discuss the issue seriously if we do not start by conceding what we do and do not know.

And again...

Fine, let's deal in facts.

The sages are factually wrong for the reasons I gave earlier and so you should not have brought them into the discussion.

Edited June 14, 2014 by John Cuthber

[PeterJ]

Oh dear. I can't help you I'm afraid. If you cannot even see that you are relying on guesswork then I will leave you to your certainty. I think it is worth thinking about these things, but I can't prove it.

[John Cuthber]

You say it is guesswork to point out that people's heads are not infinitely big.

Can you substantiate that?

[PeterJ]

As you know, I said nothing of the sort.

[barfbag]

If the universe is infinite then so must knowledge be. How can we learn what is under a rock on the most distant planet if the most distant planet is infinity miles away.

[John Cuthber]

Two problems, firstly, there's no certainty about the universe being infinite.

 

There's also an issue with the definition of knowledge here.

It's only knowledge if it is known.

So, ignorance is (at least nearly) infinite. There are many (perhaps infinite) rocks on distant worlds.

But knowledge is confined to the things that are known and since there seem to be a finite number of those, knowledge is finite.

People's heads are not collectively infinitely big (even if you include extra terrestrial "people").