5 ms·
I don’t know if the statement is correct in this case but in general saying “we will never know” about a subject which we have incomplete knowledge isn’t a cont
by yibg 4y ago
I don’t know if the statement is correct in this case but in general saying “we will never know” about a subject which we have incomplete knowledge isn’t a contradiction.
I can say, we will never know what the first human that got to North America had for lunch on their 20th birthday, and I think that’s as true as it could reasonably be. Sure maybe we’ll invent a time machine or some other technology in the future that invalidates it, but if you apply that logic then nothing can ever be stated as a fact.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ithkuil 4y agoFurthermore there is the complication caused by ambiguous problem statements. In your example, how we define the first human that got to North America? Which immigration wave? What if there were immigration waves that were completely wiped out without leaving any effects of the subsequent populations? What is the 20th birthday? According to which calendar? (Leap days etc)? What is lunch? Not every people subdivide their meals in a predictable way that you can pinpoint to what "lunch" is Etc etc EDIT: forgot the most obvious: define what counts for human. It's not clear cut to distinguish boundaries between species
- goldenkey 4y agoFurthermore if a human time travels back to the past and then sets up shop and lives amongst the first humans, maybe they are the first human? Semantics and ambiguity have a way of making unspecific questions paradoxical
- martinko 4y ago> I can say, we will never know what the first human that got to North America had for lunch on their 20th birthday, and I think that’s as true as it could reasonably be. if there is a large mirror a few hundred light years away we might be able to see his lunch in the reflection ;)
- omegalulw 4y agoNot necessarily. The signal-to-noise ratio drops the farther you get away.
- 0134340 4y agoVery few things about the origins of the universe can be stated as fact at this point so “we will never know” isn't a "fact" either. Implied certainty on either side seems pre-emptive.
- yibg 4y agoI'm not questioning that part. I don't know if stating that we'll never know about the origins of the universe is correct. I tend to agree personally that it seems premature. All I'm saying is that making (nearly) absolute claims with incomplete knowledge is not a contradiction.