82,891
edits
Potential knowns: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
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}} | |||