Potential knowns: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
This led some to career off down a logical oubliette in the quest to formulate axiomatic algebraic expressions of the relationship between all potential knowns, such as: | This led some to career off down a logical oubliette in the quest to formulate axiomatic algebraic expressions of the relationship between all potential knowns, such as: | ||
{{quote| | {{quote| | ||
''A <nowiki>=</nowiki> (K-C) - (U+C' | ''A <nowiki>=</nowiki> (K-C) - (U+C')'' <br> | ||
Where:<br>A <nowiki>=</nowiki> All Potential Knowns | Where:<br>A <nowiki>=</nowiki> All Potential Knowns | ||
<br>K <nowiki>=</nowiki> Actual Knowns<br> | <br>K <nowiki>=</nowiki> Actual Knowns<br> | ||
C <nowiki>=</nowiki> Actually | C <nowiki>=</nowiki> Actually unknown Constructive Knowns<br> | ||
C''<nowiki>'</nowiki>'' <nowiki>=</nowiki> Actually known Constructive Unknowns}} until | C''<nowiki>'</nowiki>'' <nowiki>=</nowiki> Actually known Constructive Unknowns}} | ||
This was all well and good, kept lots of [[Legaltechbro|legal technologists]] and [[thought leader]]s busy propagating wise hot takes on [[Twitter]] until it occurred that the truth value of the very proposition “there is a finite number of knowns in the universe” is, itself, unprovable and therefore unknow''able'' — meaning it is therefore ''not'' a potential known, and since (on a [[reductionist]] theory) the proposition does have a truth value (in that it ''must'' do: it is either true or false; it is just that no-one knows which), then the complete set of truths in the universe cannot be encapsulated within the potential knowns after all, and reductionism fails. | |||
''O tempora. O paradox.'' | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
*[[Forensic epistemology]] | *[[Forensic epistemology]] | ||
{{c|paradox}} | |||
Revision as of 09:31, 24 February 2022
|
The JC’S favourite Big Ideas™
|
Potential knowns
/pə(ʊ)ˈtɛnʃ(ə)l nəʊnz/ (n.)
(Reductionist baloney)
The complete set of all knowns, be they known, unknown or constructive, comprising the total intellectual energy of the semantic universe. According to reductionist thinking, the sum total value of all knowns is 1.
This led some to career off down a logical oubliette in the quest to formulate axiomatic algebraic expressions of the relationship between all potential knowns, such as:
A = (K-C) - (U+C')
Where:
A = All Potential Knowns
K = Actual Knowns
C = Actually unknown Constructive Knowns
C' = Actually known Constructive Unknowns
This was all well and good, kept lots of legal technologists and thought leaders busy propagating wise hot takes on Twitter until it occurred that the truth value of the very proposition “there is a finite number of knowns in the universe” is, itself, unprovable and therefore unknowable — meaning it is therefore not a potential known, and since (on a reductionist theory) the proposition does have a truth value (in that it must do: it is either true or false; it is just that no-one knows which), then the complete set of truths in the universe cannot be encapsulated within the potential knowns after all, and reductionism fails.
O tempora. O paradox.