Knowledge

[bricklayer]

Please give one example to each type of knowledge. Thanks.

Everything I know I know contingently; at best, that's objective.
Necessary knowledge is exhaustive (omniscient).

 

[juvenissun]

Everything I know I know contingently; at best, that's objective.
Necessary knowledge is exhaustive (omniscient).

I still do not see any example. I like to know one example on each.

 

[The Paul]

Why sequence questions beg a common context; we may not recognize a common context. That is why I have tried to express myself in terms I am left to believe are self-evident. Unfortunately, one cannot simplify beyond the self-evident. However, one can always ask why.

Here's the problem: It doesn't matter what you think is self-evident.

Human brains can deal with events on human time scales. They are connected to human senses, and so can intuitively grasp the behavior of things detectable to human sense.

The whole of the universe, the dawn of time, the ultimate nature of "existence" and "non-existence" fall outside those parameters.

What your human brain feels is self-evident about these things is irrelevant.

 

[bricklayer]

I still do not see any example. I like to know one example on each.

Contingent knowledge:
I am left to believe that I exist.
Necessary knowledge:
My existence

 

[bricklayer]

Here's the problem: It doesn't matter what you think is self-evident.

Human brains can deal with events on human time scales. They are connected to human senses, and so can intuitively grasp the behavior of things detectable to human sense.

The whole of the universe, the dawn of time, the ultimate nature of "existence" and "non-existence" fall outside those parameters.

What your human brain feels is self-evident about these things is irrelevant.

Then the above post should be quite easily dismissed.

 

[juvenissun]

Contingent knowledge:
I am left to believe that I exist.
Necessary knowledge:
My existence

OK, I understand now.

In the OP, you defined two terms. Any argument about them?

 

[bricklayer]

OK, I understand now.

In the OP, you defined two terms. Any argument about them?

I am left to believe that I exist; that is my contingent knowledge.
My contingent knowledge of my existence begs another's necessary knowledge of my existence.

But like I wrote, as a contingent being, that's what I'm left to believe. At best it's objective, but for sure it's subject to change (contingent).

 

[juvenissun]

I am left to believe that I exist; that is my contingent knowledge.
My contingent knowledge of my existence begs another's necessary knowledge of my existence.

But like I wrote, as a contingent being, that's what I'm left to believe. At best it's objective, but for sure it's subject to change (contingent).

So, is there any way to know whether you do exist as a necessary knowledge?

If not, what is the purpose of the necessary knowledge?

 

[The Paul]

Then the above post should be quite easily dismissed.

No, no. It is quite easily dismissed.

It shouldn't be, but people are often inappropriately defensive of the importance of their first impression of how things are.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

bricklayer, I am still curious about what, in your view, existence consists in. I've already sketched in brief what I think it takes for something to exist - it must consist in matter (or some configuration thereof). I'm also curious why you think that necessary existence must necessarily be divine and supernatural existence. Your argument for the existence of some necessary cause does not show that the cause must be something of divine nature.

 

[bricklayer]

So, is there any way to know whether you do exist as a necessary knowledge?

If not, what is the purpose of the necessary knowledge?

As a contingent being, my contingent knowledge can be at best objective.

The contingent is, by definition, subject to the purpose of the necessary.
The necessary is, by definition, not subject to anything.

 

[bricklayer]

bricklayer, I am still curious about what, in your view, existence consists in. I've already sketched in brief what I think it takes for something to exist - it must consist in matter (or some configuration thereof). I'm also curious why you think that necessary existence must necessarily be divine and supernatural existence. Your argument for the existence of some necessary cause does not show that the cause must be something of divine nature.

I never used the terms divine or supernatural. I never made such a proposition.

I will restate my proposition.
Matter is that with mass.
Space is position relative to matter.
Time is the progressive sequential increments of the matter-space continuum.
(Note matter's special relativity)
Energy is the interaction of matter in space over time.

Because no particle of matter can occupy the same position relative to the balance of matter in any two increments of time, I am left to believe that the matter-space-time continuum is subject to constant exhaustive change.
Because anything that is subject to change is subject (i.e. not-sovereign, not-necessary, contingent), I am left to believe that the matter-space-time continuum is contingent.
By definition, that which exists contingently exists contingent upon something else and cannot account for its own existence.
Because a cause effect sequence must, by definition, begin with a cause,
the contingent existence of the constantly changing matter-space-time continuum begs a necessary, metaphysical, meta-spatial, meta-temporal, efficient cause.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I never used the terms divine or supernatural. I never made such a proposition.

I will restate my proposition.
Matter is that with mass.
Space is position relative to matter.
Time is the progressive sequential increments of the matter-space continuum.
(Note matter's special relativity)
Energy is the interaction of matter in space over time.

Because no particle of matter can occupy the same position relative to the balance of matter in any two increments of time, I am left to believe that the matter-space-time continuum is subject to constant exhaustive change.
Because anything that is subject to change is subject (i.e. not-sovereign, not-necessary, contingent), I am left to believe that the matter-space-time continuum is contingent.
By definition, that which exists contingently exists contingent upon something else and cannot account for its own existence.
Because a cause effect sequence must, by definition, begin with a cause,
the contingent existence of the constantly changing matter-space-time continuum begs a necessary, metaphysical, meta-spatial, meta-temporal, efficient cause.

A few issues...

1. Why should we assume that matter as a whole (i.e. the sum of all matter) cannot account for itself and is contingent on something non-matter? There are contingencies in matter, but does that necessarily mean that matter itself is contingent on something other than matter?

2. Suppose that we subtract all matter from the universe. What are we left with? We should, on your account, be left with the necessary cause. After all the contingencies are removed, all that is left is that which is necessary. But what is it? On my account, it is nothing. It is nothing because for something to exist it must consist in matter, and because we have subtracted all matter from the universe, we are left with nothing (non-existence).

3. You did call the necessary cause "spiritual" earlier. My concern is simply that your argument does not actually demonstrate that the necessary cause must be something of a spiritual nature.

 

[bricklayer]

A few issues...

1. Why should we assume that matter as a whole (i.e. the sum of all matter) cannot account for itself and is contingent on something non-matter? There are contingencies in matter, but does that necessarily mean that matter itself is contingent on something other than matter?

2. Suppose that we subtract all matter from the universe. What are we left with? We should, on your account, be left with the necessary cause. After all the contingencies are removed, all that is left is that which is necessary. But what is it? On my account, it is nothing. It is nothing because for something to exist it must consist in matter, and because we have subtracted all matter from the universe, we are left with nothing (non-existence).

3. You did call the necessary cause "spiritual" earlier. My concern is simply that your argument does not actually demonstrate that the necessary cause must be something of a spiritual nature.

There exists a great deal that is immaterial. Mathematics and music are examples. The purely intellectual, emotional and willful actually exist without material being. The theoretical, philosophical and fictional exist apart from their material being.

Spiritual equates to meta-spatial, as eternal equates to meta-temporal.

As I stated above, I affirm material contingency because material is subject to change. Anything subject to change is subject (contingent).
Therefore, I am left to believe that matter's existence is contingent upon the metaphysical, meta-spatial (spiritual) and meta-temporal (eternal).

Space and time are existentially relative to matter. (special relativity)
Space is nothing more than position relative to matter.
Time is the progressive sequential increments of that matter-space continuum.

What you espouse is called material necessity. The problem with material necessity is that material is subject to change. Nothing can be both subject and necessary.

There are many more reason why I affirm material contingency.
Causality, affirms that no effect can transcend its cause. For example: non-existence cannot produce existence, the impersonal cannot produce the personal.
Therefore, not only am I left to believe that the efficient cause of the material transcends the material but the the efficient cause of the personal transcends the personal.

 

[ivebeenshown]

There exists a great deal that is immaterial. Mathematics and music are examples. The purely intellectual, emotional and willful actually exist without material being. The theoretical, philosophical and fictional exist apart from their material being.

Mathematics are, in a way, concepts that exist in human thoughts, which may be physically observed as energy in the brain (however that works, I am no neurosurgeon.) Emotions, musical ideas, and philosophical concepts all physically reside within the brain.

 

[juvenissun]

As a contingent being, my contingent knowledge can be at best objective.

The contingent is, by definition, subject to the purpose of the necessary.
The necessary is, by definition, not subject to anything.

Could I simply translate your "necessary knowledge" to a word called "truth"?

 

[bricklayer]

Could I simply translate your "necessary knowledge" to a word called "truth"?

Close. Truth is necessary. However, we cannot know truth necessarily. We can only know truth contingently. At best, our contingent knowledge is objectively true.