Imagine for a moment that you know everything...

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

During that moment did you know what it is like to not know everything during that moment?

How could you know what it is like to not know everything during that moment without actually not knowing everything during that moment?

 

[pakicetus]

How could you know what it is like to not know everything during that moment without actually not knowing everything during that moment?

Not sure it's really possible to know exactly what it's like to do or be or experience anything unless you're actually doing or being or experiencing it right now. It's a profound and difficult question -- partly because it's hard to see what "knowing what something is like" actually means.

You might like reading this.

 

[Gottservant]

If you know that it's unknown (and you know it's unknown, that you know don't know) - (then, yes, you have begun to know, that you know everything, in principle (because knowledge of the unknown is infinite (if properly known, that it is unknown (preceptively, as a minimum)_____)_____ _____)_____ _____ _____.

Preceptively, meaning pertaining to wisdom that is not defined by simple proverbial equations (or further unknowns ____ ____) _____ _____ _____.

 

[Moral Orel]

During that moment did you know what it is like to not know everything during that moment?

How could you know what it is like to not know everything during that moment without actually not knowing everything during that moment?

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but it seems too simple to me. Can't you know something because you remember it?

As an example, if you were born poor, lived most of your life poor, and then won the lottery when you were 40, then lived a rich life for the next 40 years wouldn't you say that you know what it's like to be poor and you know what it's like to be rich?

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but it seems too simple to me. Can't you know something because you remember it?

As an example, if you were born poor, lived most of your life poor, and then won the lottery when you were 40, then lived a rich life for the next 40 years wouldn't you say that you know what it's like to be poor and you know what it's like to be rich?

But if at moment A you know everything, do you at moment A know what it is like not to know everything at moment A?

What you remember from some moment other than moment A is not part of knowing or not knowing everything at moment A.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think threfore God's knowledge is finite, because he cant be me thinking. Something like that?

 

[Gottservant]

I think threfore God's knowledge is finite, because he cant be me thinking.

Technically, you are saying "God's knowledge is finite, to me" therefore it is finite to you, but not necessarily to everyone (which may or may not be your problem, _____ _____ to you _____ , _____ _____ " " " ")

 

[True Scotsman]

During that moment did you know what it is like to not know everything during that moment?

How could you know what it is like to not know everything during that moment without actually not knowing everything during that moment?

No. Because imagination is not a means of knowing.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

During that moment did you know what it is like to not know everything during that moment?

How could you know what it is like to not know everything during that moment without actually not knowing everything during that moment?

Hi Love,

Interesting question. However, I think the typical self-referential contradiction comes into play here (as it does with all of these types of semantic exercises) because it matters as to what kind of being is attempting the thought experiment. And in this case, it is a finite being [i.e. me] that is doing the experiment.

We might also want to consider that an 'infinite' being wouldn't run into this conundrum.

Peace
2PhiloVoid

 

[Noxot]

During that moment did you know what it is like to not know everything during that moment?

How could you know what it is like to not know everything during that moment without actually not knowing everything during that moment?

I would put myself in a limited capacity so i can see reality from all kinds of different ways while at the same time I would hide from myself and watch the one who is limited. I probably did this in a way that is impossible for a limited capacity to know.

so part of me would be all knowing and yet just past the veil everything would be like an infinite expressing of the knowing filtering through the limited capacity thus revealing two different types of infinity. one of those would be an illusion of limitations that expands forever. so it would be like I died and then resurrected myself. this a partial reason that reality is said to be a Trinity.

I could come up with different concepts such as "eternity" and then come up with something like "universes" or "time". I could just divide the whole of myself into fragments of myself and then I would be both things.

I could day dream and say i know all things and it would be so then I could say i am a little one in the day dream and say I know not things.


it is logical to say that the finite and infinite are polar opposites which means they are united and not truly two separate things. therefore the second person of the Trinity is said to be the Son of God who is both God and man.

 

[lupusFati]

During that moment did you know what it is like to not know everything during that moment?

Duh. Why would I forget what it was like? Suddenly gaining omniscience doesn't negate your past experiences.

How could you know what it is like to not know everything during that moment without actually not knowing everything during that moment?

Okay despite the confusing structure of this sentence, I'm gonna have to go back to the "why would I ever forget what it was like to not know everything, as I was like that not more than a minute ago".

I would then proceed to gain omnipotence, as I would know how to do that. Also omnipresence for the thrill of it.

Not that I'm insulting you, but I don't think you thought this post through. It's a very easy question to answer.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Duh. Why would I forget what it was like? Suddenly gaining omniscience doesn't negate your past experiences.


Okay despite the confusing structure of this sentence, I'm gonna have to go back to the "why would I ever forget what it was like to not know everything, as I was like that not more than a minute ago".

I would then proceed to gain omnipotence, as I would know how to do that. Also omnipresence for the thrill of it.

Not that I'm insulting you, but I don't think you thought this post through. It's a very easy question to answer.

But the question is not, "Would you know what it is like to not know everything". The question is, "Would you know what it is like to not know everything during that time".

Yes, you would know what it is like to categorically not know everything--because previously you did not know everything, and you would likely remember what that is like. But would you know what it is like to not know everything during the time that you do know everything?

If between 1pm and 2pm on 7/20/15 I will know everything, will I know what it is like not to know everything between 1pm and 2pm on 7/20/15? The fact that I will know what it was like not to know everything before 1pm on 7/20/15 is irrelevant.

If during A you know everything and everybody else does not know everything, do you, during A, know what it is like to be everybody else during A?

 

[quatona]

During that moment did you know what it is like to not know everything during that moment?

How could you know what it is like to not know everything during that moment without actually not knowing everything during that moment?

Depends on how you define "everything".