Is knowledge Infinite?

[Deepak Kapur]

 

 

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

 

 

Can we actually define anything without divergent views or controversies?

[John Cuthber]

 

Can we actually define anything without divergent views or controversies?

I suspect that it doesn't matter if I say yes or no, someone will have the opposite opinion.

[barfbag]

After post 25 by JohnC, I looked up the definition of knowledge which actually seems to be in contention itself.

 

However, no single definition of knowledge exists, though there are numerous theories to explain it.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge

 

 

As long as the word itself is in contention, there can be no legitimate answer to this thread, that much seems clear.

 

JohnC suggests

 

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

It's only knowledge if it is known.

 

 

Which is a possible definition I suppose.

 

 

I think there is knowledge to be discovered and uncovered. I think the term knowledge is fit to apply to knowledge they will have in 10 000 years from now. What else would we call it? Yet that knowledge is not yet known and by JohnC definition (above) is not knowledge.

 

So I would say that the contents of a cave on mars contains knowledge that we have not yet learned. We do not know if the stones in that cave are red or yellow, but investigation will lead to our knowledge of the caves contents. Is it not knowledge even if it is undiscovered?

 

Anyways all these points are moot because the definition of the word "knowledge" itself remains in contention.

 

If I had to define knowledge I might say It includes everything that can be learned. Who can say?

Edited June 20, 2014 by barfbag

[radicalsymmetry]

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

 

Dear Deepak Kapur, as follows, the correct answer to your question is as such:

 

The causative aspect of the paradox is the immanent possibility that the paradox may be eminent (and) the cessative aspect of the paradox is the eminent possibility that the paradox may be immanent.

 

The (un-named) paradox is not something that can be learnt from another person or intellectually comprehended.

 

Best wishes.

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

 

 

*If* the solution to all questions resolves to infinity then we couldn’t quantify knowledge as solutions to questions. So yes, there can be no end to our questions, and as long as we can ask a question, there would seem to be an elusive answer remaining.

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

 

If the Universe is not infinite; then what lays at the end, on the other side, of the finite universe?

 

Nothing?

...God?

 

Nothing cannot exist.

and who is creator of God... God's father?

 

To say the universe is finite implies a dualism or that creation was sparked by an exogenic causative agency.

Edited July 27, 2014 by radicalsymmetry

[Ten oz]

 

If the Universe is not infinite; then what lays at the end, on the other side, of the finite universe?

 

Nothing?

...God?

 

Nothing cannot exist.

and who is creator of God... God's father?

 

To say the universe is finite implies a dualism or that creation was sparked by an exogenic causative agency.

The concept of God has nothing to do with a finite universe. Nothing is equal to infinity basically as time wouldn't apply to it. Nothing is nothing and remains nothing for eternity. Nothing is never converted into something?

Energy is not gain or lost but matter can be transformed. To say our universe is finite is to imply our physics and laws are finite. For example if all the matter in our universe were inside a black hole where our laws no longer apply our universe would essentially have ended. It doesn't mean matter has been destoryed or that nothing exists.

[radicalsymmetry]

Nothing is equal to infinity

 

Pure speculation and you further leverage, off this guess, to make further invalid assumptions.

 

It doesn't mean matter has been destoryed or that nothing exists.

 

You might like to be more careful with your words.

 

You casually throw around the word "nothing" without thinking about the implications of your conveyed meaning.

 

I presume you intended to convey:

 

It doesn't mean matter has been destoryed or that everything does not exist.

 

That's what you really mean isn't it?

 

If you can't use the word "nothing" correctly; I hardly think you are qualified to provide definition on the existential meaning of "nothing" and also to then go on comparing it with infinity.

 

"NOTHING" EXISTS = INCORRECT.

 

"NOTHING" DOES NOT EXIST.

Edited July 27, 2014 by radicalsymmetry

[fiveworlds]

A neurologist may know everything about neurology. But may not know how to make an electrocardiogram. In fact in one country they had a load of sophisticated computers not a single doctor could repair so they had to get rid of them.

Edited July 27, 2014 by fiveworlds

[studiot]

I think this fits the description given in post#28 and some other definitions as well.

 

I know that the number which comes after 1 is '2' and the number that comes after that is '3' and ...........................................

 

So is my knowledge finite or infinite?

[Dekan]

 

 

I know that the number which comes after 1 is '2' and the number that comes after that is '3' and ...........................................

 

So is my knowledge finite or infinite?

Surely the answer is - your knowledge is finite.

 

The example you give, is really only this simplistic proposition: "If you start with a number N, you can add 1 to it, so that N becomes N + 1 ". Thus "1 + 1 = 2"

This proposition is true. (And indeed, looks like a kind of Euclidean-style "axiom" of maths).

 

But does it, by itself, provide an adequate understanding of numbers? Obviously not. It doesn't account for the infinite range of possible numbers between 1 and 2 . Such as 1.2, 1.55, 1.777, and so on.

 

So if you only know that "the number which comes after 1 is 2", then your knowledge is definitely finite.

Edited July 28, 2014 by Dekan

[John Cuthber]

But I know the rule for "the number which comes after x is..."

And I know that for an infinite number of values of x

[Dekan]

Well yes, if x is 1 and you're just adding 1 each time.

 

But can you know, in advance, what is the 999,999,999,999,999, 999 +1 digit of Pi? Nobody can, so knowledge is finite. Limited to the last known digit calculated by our biggest supercomputer.

[John Cuthber]

It's one of the problems with dealing in infinities, I can (hypothetically) know an infinite number of things, but still not know an infinite number of others.

 

Does that make me infinitely knowledgeable, or infinitely ignorant?

[radicalsymmetry]

Nice puzzle. Cute. Perhaps it's able to be written because the concept of infinity it's based upon is flawed... or perhaps you are totally correct. Who knows? Who can say they they know of an infinity and how could someone be able to comprehend an infinity with a finite brain ?

 

How did the humans ever come up with infinity? Sure you might say "person x 2400 years ago" but I bet such concepts go back waaay further than that.

Edited July 28, 2014 by radicalsymmetry

[Dekan]

Knowledge can defined, as the total number of things we know. Which is always limited.

 

Whereas "Ignorance" can be defined as the total number of things we don't know. And since there will always be new things we don't yet know about, Ignorance is unlimited.

 

Which leads to the observation astutely made by radicalsymmetry in #38. The concept of "infinity" is flawed. I think this flaw comes from a simple linguistic artefact. We have a word "infinity", which is a noun. That makes us conceive of it as actual thing. Something concrete, physical. Some endpoint which we could eventually arrive at, and acquire full knowledge of. But that's a delusion. There's only "endlessness".

 

If we stopped using the misleading concept "infinity", our thoughts on many subjects might get clearer.

[studiot]

 

Knowledge can defined, as the total number of things we know. Which is always limited.

 

Can you prove the claim in your second sentence?

[John Cuthber]

There are a finite number of us, each with finite heads. That imposes a finite limit on our aggregate knowledge.

[Dekan]

 

Can you prove the claim in your second sentence?

 

I'm not sure - may I get back to you on that later?

[studiot]

 

I'm not sure - may I get back to you on that later?

 

 

I'm glad you are thinking about that because one of the challenges in numerical mathematics has always been performing larger calculations than will fit into the available computing 'machine' in one go.

It is perfectly possible to perform a 20 digit calculation on an 8 digit machine if you know how to divide up the calculation.

This can be extended to 'n' digits.

[John Cuthber]

 

I'm glad you are thinking about that because one of the challenges in numerical mathematics has always been performing larger calculations than will fit into the available computing 'machine' in one go.

It is perfectly possible to perform a 20 digit calculation on an 8 digit machine if you know how to divide up the calculation.

This can be extended to 'n' digits.

Only if you have memory to record the intermediate calculations.

[studiot]

 

Only if you have memory to record the intermediate calculations.

 

 

This is true, though I prefer 'means of recording'.

[John Cuthber]

Whatever you call it, in a finite lifetime, a finite number of us only have access to a finite amount of it.

[studiot]

 

Whatever you call it, in a finite lifetime, a finite number of us only have access to a finite amount of it.

 

 

But that the original question was not as to whether any body or collection of bodies, human or otherwise, knows this knowledge.

 

The title question was is knowledge infinte?

 

I maintain that since I can add 1 to any number chosen I have access to an infinity of numbers.

 

Therefore there is an infinity of knowledge available, whether I know it or not.

[John Cuthber]

I think something is only part of "knowledge" if it is known. And, there are only a finite number of things we can know.

 

As pointed out earlier there are problems with the fact that I can be infinitely knowledgeable and infinitely ignorant at the same time.

 

If you don't know what I had for breakfast then there's a gap in your knowledge. So your knowledge is not "without end" so it's not infinite.

 

It's a matter of definitions.

[studiot]

Can't agree with that.

 

There set of integers is infinite, yet it does not contain an infinite amount of other non integer numbers.

 

Saying there are things unknown or I don't know is no barrier to there being an infinite set of knowledge, separable from other infinite sets of other knowledge.

 

You have already pointed out that is the nature of infinity.

[John Cuthber]

But infinite means limitless.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=infinite&oq=infinite&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i61l3&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=define+infinite

If there's a limit to your knowledge (concerning my breakfast) then your knowledge is finite.

As I said, it's a matter of definition.