There was a thought experiment that came to me.
Suppose there would only be a cube, and you as an observer. These are the restrictions.
- You do not have any knowledge of yourself. i.e. questions about how you perceive the cube etc. are not accessible to your mind.
- There is only a cube.
What could you be able to know about this cube?
Suppose now a sphere is introduced.
Is there anything you would learn about the cube (positively), by the introduction of the sphere, that you could not have previously known about the cube?
(for example, could you, by the existence of a cube alone learn the concept of an edge, corner, number (amount of edges that a cube has)). Or do you need another object so you would be able to distinguish characteristics and so learn properties of the objects?
*( I am not merely talking about negative attributes of a cube, such as: it is not round, but rather things like: it is straight). (perhaps an additional question related, do you need negative attributes in order to be able to assert positive attributes)
*The answer given to this question would determine whether or not everything that is knowable about an object depends on other objects, or whether everything about an object can be known be simply studying that object. (This is what I mean by epistemological potential).
*The question is about what you COULD know, not necessarily what you would actually know in such a situation.