How little do we really know -- of anything?

[HopSan]

Hello Avalons,

Here a thing that seems to be flashing all the time:


How much do we really know -- about anything?


1. I studied Computer Science (then mostly a branch of discrete math and logic)
& AI 1.0 in late 1980's. The more I studied, the less I knew.

My professor reduced to giggling, when I showed my plan of Masters
in CompSci. He could not say what if anything was wrong.
He eagerly told me to continue, but I was -- confused.

Problem, as I understood much later: My work was between Cognition,
Philosophy and CompSci in a proposed real life application.

I was a smart idiot from woods then, and did not now that it was
(and is) taboo to go to areas between 'sciences'.

What was obvious was that he did not understand more than me,
who was only a beginner (and knew it).

Many CompSci fads have come and gone, and in most cases I saw
very early that this and that cannot work. (XML etc.)


2. All the sciences that I have later looked at, seem to be in a
similar primitive state as CompSci.

Medicine, History, Physics, [choose your area]... All are locked
in mainstream of 50 yrs or more ago. Nothing important new has
been found.


3. I have very slowly realised that we know very little -- of anything.

Not 90% of Final Truth, not 50%. Possibly 30% in some limited areas.

But mostly, perhaps only 20%, or 10%, or 5% -- or less.


4. Follows: Only the simplest, personal, everyday understanding of the
world can really be trusted.

We humans are very simple creatures, and our minds pitifully feeble.

Anything 'deep' an authority of any kind says -- is very probably wrong.


5. Look: In Science, Business, Politics, Religion, etc.:

Can you find any leader who understands more than you?

[ErtheVessel]

I've been reading books and watching videos about nutrition and alternative healing for many years. I've acquired a lot of "knowledge" about it and some of it seems to have helped me maintain some level of health.

A few years back, I saw a video that I will never forget, though I did not bookmark it and so cannot reference it. In it, the "expert" was humble and honest enough to say quite plainly, and I'm paraphrasing,

...nutrition in the human body is so complex that we really have no way of actually comprehending it at all....

This simple statement changed my perspective on many things and helped me "let go" a little bit.

[Docim369]

Socrates was known to be the most knowledgeable at his time and he truthfully said:
"All I Know Is That I Know Nothing"
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftheinovogroup.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2Fknown-unknown.png%3Fw%3D300&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=2473090ced31716f4ff531a7560a1d6e7ae9f48dd7602b637583a2298870cdea&ipo=images

[norman]

Great idea for a thread.

As an opening pitch from me . . . . I'll drop in what seems to have become my perennial.

The intellect is incapable of 'knowing'. It can only build facsimiles from snippets of knowing that break into it despite it's best efforts not because of them.

[Ernie Nemeth]

Thanks Hop San.

It is true, we know close to nothing at all. All our so-called knowledge is incomplete, replete with contradictions, and worse of all, teeming with assumptions never tested.

In cosmology this all comes to the fore: after centuries of study, it turns out that we have been studying what we thought was the universe. But what we have been studying is only 4% of what must be there. Which means that there is 96% of the universe we have no idea what it is, cannot see it or detect it at all.
So after centuries we know a whole lot about the 4% we can see, but what we know is patently wrong because we cannot account for the rest. We instead have to resort to childish, and outlandish, nomenclature to describe it: dark matter and dark energy. 'Dark' meaning we have no clue at all what that 96% unseen and unknown could possibly be.

[ZenBaller]

This is valid from the point of view of the mind, anything that is quantifiable. From the esoteric view of the heart and intuition, everything is already known or accessible instantly.

[Michel Leclerc]

Well Hopsan and Zenball – to bridge your difference of opinion: does it not entirely depend on what “know„ means?

There lies also the limit of the definition game Socrates plays. As always in my book: the unspecifiable limits of all forms or items of language.

Hence ad your point 4 Hopsan: no – neither “the simplest, personal, everyday understanding of the world can be trusted”.

[shaberon]

Well Hopsan and Zenball – to bridge your difference of opinion: does it not entirely depend on what “know„ means?



It does.

In my realm, the Knower knows whatever it is directly experiencing. It is not an outer concept bridged by words. When you put your hand on the stove you know it is hot!

The "means of valid cognition" are classed as Pramana (https://www.wisdomlib.org/definition/pramana), which extends of course to mundane knowledge, and so for example "witness testimony" may be a valid way to know something.

In terms of the sheer quantity of facts, or, total description of the outer world, we would consider it unreachable. But that's not really what we're seeking. Any knowledge is means to an end; "truth" is determined in whether something increases or relieves suffering. In that sense, millions of facts are "untrue". I can measure, for instance, the impact of various kinds of bullets to the human skull -- except there is no good reason we should be learning about this. It's not possible for me to discuss this in a clinically-detached manner; there is always a value to be maintained.

[rgray222]

I am not attempting to be funny when I say........................we don't even know what we don't know.

[ExomatrixTV]

Why is Truth so difficult vs Why are some Truths so hard? (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?123703-Why-is-Truth-so-difficult-vs-Why-are-some-Truths-so-hard)

[ExomatrixTV]

Man with 200 IQ Explains the Secrets of Realit:

d8IZ0L5596s
Chris Langan, often referred to as the smartest man alive, is renowned for having the highest IQ ever recorded, estimated to be around 200 IQ. Known for his profound intelligence and groundbreaking theories, he stands as a testament to human cognitive potential.


Independently me and Chris Langan have come to the same theoretical conclusion about truth (https://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?91458-Independently-me-and-Chris-Langan-have-come-to-the-same-theoretical-conclusion-about-truth)