Is knowledge infinite?

[Pineapple]

2-3) My definition of knowledge is not "the number of facts collected" but "the amount of facts in existence"
If you make no records of events in history, the events in history still occurred.
In your argument, you seem to concede that there are an infinite number of events to record.
However, choosing how many events to record does not change the actual amount of events in existence.
Again, there is only 1 timeline, and in that timeline there is only 1 "History", which made be made up of an infinite amount of infinitesimal units, but is collectively finite.

4) I think the above properly addresses the fields of Biology and Music. Although you can discover knew things, the amount of things discovered from the beginning of time to the end of time remains constant, and you are only tapping into the reservoir of undiscovered knowledge.

[Zeru]

My definition of knowledge is not "the number of facts collected" but "the amount of facts in existence"

We are discussing the latter from the very beginning.

If you make no records of events in history, the events in history still occurred.
In your argument, you seem to concede that there are an infinite number of events to record.

Because there are infinite amount of events to record.

Again, there is only 1 timeline, and in that timeline there is only 1 "History", which made be made up of an infinite amount of infinitesimal units, but is collectively finite.

It's collectively finite, but it contains infinite amount of facts.



You have completely missed my point.
It does not matter that the universe is limited in both time and space (if it is).
Both time and space are continuous.
Take a ruler into your hand. Look at the number 4. Than look at 5. Between those numbers there is an infinite amount of real numbers. In fact, you have more numbers in front of your eyes than the total amount of natural numbers. It way be counter-intuitive for you, but within that limited length you have more numbers than within a different infinite set.

[teffy]

Both time and space are continuous.

We can´t be sure, here. A film looks "moved" , and the time of a film looks continuous. However, films consist of a finite number of pictures (~ 20 per second I think), with a finite number of pixels. The whole world could be similar - a finite number of pieces of room , and a finite number of time points in a second.

[Aves]

I am getting confused now. 

Both time and space are continuous.

We can´t be sure, here. A film looks "moved" , and the time of a film looks continuous. However, films consist of a finite number of pictures (~ 20 per second I think), with a finite number of pixels. The whole world could be similar - a finite number of pieces of room , and a finite number of time points in a second.

But units of time are arbitrary measurements, designed to relate to our existence. Why should we believe that each of your 'time points' couldn't be further divided or viewed in a different manner?

In fact, you have more numbers in front of your eyes than the total amount of natural numbers.

How is an infinite set 'more' or 'less' or 'equal' to another infinite set in terms of quantity?

[Zeru]

How is an infinite set 'more' or 'less' or 'equal' to another infinite set in terms of quantity?

I really don't want to go into detail here. Especially with language barriers. I hope you can be satisfied with a simplistic answer that there are different "kinds" of infinities.
If that answer is not enough, I can point you out to Cardinal numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_number) and Set theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_theory).
The amount of natural numbers is the "smallest kind" of infinity.

[teffy]

To support the view, that there are more than 1 kind of infinity, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor%27s_diagonal_argument

It shows, that the natural numbers are countable, but the intervall [0;1] is an uncountable set, and the number of elements is uncountable -means "more" than the number of natural numbers, because there´s no bijection between all natural numbers and [0;1]

[agentflare]

Ok, the main problem is that we haven't defined "Knowledge". Is the concept knowledge, or are the details knowledge?
For example, division is knowledge, but is the knowledge 3/1=3 separate from the knowledge of division? Is 6/2=3 separate from 3/1=2, even though 3/1=6/2?

[zhangvict]

Ahh nevermind, this is not revelant
How about this:

1. Knowledge is a justified true belief
----1. a "Belief" as in for you to know something, you must believe what you know
---------e.g. If you do not believe the sky is blue, you do not "know" the sky is blue
----1.b "True" as in the thing you know is not false
---------e.g. You cannot know the sky is green even if you believe it, because the sky is not actually green
----1.c "Justified" as in you did not randomly just believe something and it happened to be true
---------e.g. A person raised underground his entire life who randomly guessed the sky is blue, believed it is true, does not actually "know" the sky is blue since it's a random guess.

2. It is impossible to ultimately test if something is true or false
-->we can look at the sky and see it is blue, but there is always a possibility that the entire world is having a collective hallucination and that the sky is actually green and not blue
-->we believe we are not in a matrix and that the earth exists, but it is entirely possible that we actually are in a matrix and have no way of telling so
-->we believe tomorrow gravity will work, but we can never know if some weird astromnomical/quantum/string phenenonom will cause people to fly
-->and numerous other examples concerning the problem of induction

3. Therefore Justified True Beliefs do not exist, because everything we think of as true cannot be justified; it's truth  can only be believed.

4. Therefore Knowledge does not exist and is an absurd concept

5. Therefore it is not infinite

[pervepic]

Knoledge is infinite in the way like creation is infinite (there is no identical moments for anyone , never; and perception is also, at least for the consderable degree, a creation).

[zhangvict]

Hm that got me thinking..

If knowledge exists, how do we know it is a quantized object, split into even catagories?

Perhaps instead of: Concept 1, Concept 2, Concept 3 the same way you have Element  and Element 
You may have Concept 1----------->many-small-intervals----------->Concept 2

Like ----> ---->

Perhaps knowledge is a continuous quantity with each two different ideas having infinite variations in between them just like the numbers 1 and 2 have infinite decimal numbers in between them.

For example: the quadratic formula----------->the axioms of algebra--------->the law of identity-------->the law of non-contradiction------->Kantian ethics

You get what I mean right?

[agentflare]

Hm that got me thinking..

If knowledge exists, how do we know it is a quantized object, split into even catagories?

Perhaps instead of: Concept 1, Concept 2, Concept 3 the same way you have Element  and Element 
You may have Concept 1----------->many-small-intervals----------->Concept 2

Like ----> ---->

Perhaps knowledge is a continuous quantity with each two different ideas having infinite variations in between them just like the numbers 1 and 2 have infinite decimal numbers in between them.

For example: the quadratic formula----------->the axioms of algebra--------->the law of identity-------->the law of non-contradiction------->Kantian ethics

You get what I mean right?

Look at the definition in post 1. QED.

[artimies7]

It takes ten thousand hours to design a complex idea, ten thousand seconds to teach it, and ten thousand minutes to understand it.