0

I am going to talk about the necessity of the reason to know by talking about the nature of spacetime, and therefore, of our nature. I'm not sure whether this is specific enough for StackExchange, but my question is, is the paragraph below sensible?

Here are my propositions:

  1. It is not important to know the fake.
  2. All that exists is the physical (physicalism).

There are two possibilities: either spacetime is real or fake. If it is fake, our "existence" is also fake. It is not important to know anything that is fake. So there is no need to know at all.

Otherwise, spacetime is real. If it is real, then so are we. Since all which exists is the physical, our minds must be a product of the physical. And due to the limit on all physicals, our minds are bounded on what we can store, as well as on what we can understand. Therefore, we can never know everything.

  • What if we are our memories are bounded, but our ability to grasp is not?

It is impossible to occur because how will we ever know what we will never know? A contradiction therefore exists.

closed as unclear what you're asking by Swami Vishwananda, Frank Hubeny, Mark Andrews, curiousdannii, Bertrand Wittgenstein's Ghost May 31 at 4:42

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • "A contradiction therefore exists." What contradiction ? – Mauro ALLEGRANZA May 30 at 6:08
  • "Is there a reason to know?" Maybe it is part of human nature the desire to know. Maybe we a biological programmed to "investigate" our environment. – Mauro ALLEGRANZA May 30 at 6:10
  • @MauroALLEGRANZA, the question above regarding a bounded memory yet an unlimited grasping ability. – Damodar Dahal May 30 at 6:13
  • @MauroALLEGRANZA, I agree. We could be evolutionary beings, and one of the evolutionary parameters "fitness parameter" is the ability to investigate our environments. Does it support the argument though that we can never know because evolution carved our abilities to see reality (as Donald Hoffman believes)? – Damodar Dahal May 30 at 6:18
1

It is not important to know anything that is fake.

If my doctor's license is fake, I think it's important for me to know it. This statement isn't objectively true since "important" is subjective — it depends on what an individual values and considers important. Doesn't look like your conclusion holds.

Therefore, we can never know everything.

This is correct.

It is impossible to occur because how will we ever know what we will never know? A contradiction therefore exists.

If we will never know A, then there's no "how" to learn it. I don't see any contradiction here.

Just because you can't know everything doesn't mean that knowing something is useless. But there's no objective reason why you should care knowing about things. This has to do with your own values and preferences. I have a reason for studying engineering, you may or may not have one to study it too. A "reason for knowing" is subjective, it can't exist independently of an individual.

  • 1
    Importance presupposes a scale of values. A scale of values requires an individual (a subject). Something that's objectively the case doesn't requires an individual to be true — the property is contained in the object itself. Since importance cannot exist without an individual who thinks X is important, it cannot be the case that X is objectively important or unimportant. Proposition 1 cannot logically be held as objectively true. – Caio Costa May 30 at 6:20
  • 1
    @CaioCosta, point taken. I am a scientist by training so I have a particular way of looking at things, and I am just starting to dig in to philosophy more rigorously. – Michael Lautman May 30 at 23:32
  • 1
    @Damodar Dahal truth is the adequacy of our thoughts to the objects of our thoughts. If our thoughts were adequate to that universe in question, our thoughts would actually be true. Again, I don't see how it could be logically possible for everything to be fake. I believe this is just impossible. (2/2) – Caio Costa May 30 at 23:35
  • 1
    @MichaelLautman that's great! I haven't read it yet, but I think Robert Audi's book on Epistemology probably worth the read if you're interested in the topic. Michael Huemer's works on epistemology are good reads too. – Caio Costa May 30 at 23:42
  • 1
    I started thinking that I understood it. Now I feel like I have not understood at all. Thank you CaioCosta and @MichaelLautman, I am free from a few doubts now. – Damodar Dahal May 31 at 0:30

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.