3 ms·
Sure, I'll take a swing! If we define "knowing" some fact F as "we have proven that F follows from prerequisite facts A1..AN", then we can imagine all knowledg
by kdmccormick 3y ago
Sure, I'll take a swing!
If we define "knowing" some fact F as "we have proven that F follows from prerequisite facts A1..AN", then we can imagine all knowledge forms a graph where prerequsities point to the facts that they prove. Either this graph is cyclic, or there are nodes with no inbound edges. Therefore, there are facts which are either non-demonstrable, or only demonstrable via cyclic logic.
I think this works, unless of course you have another definiton of "knowing" :)
- alasdair_ 3y agoI see no reason why knowledge needs to come from prerequisite facts. Showing my ignorance here, but isn't this the whole point of "cogito ergo sum"? The "fact" that we are thinking is a first principle that comes from nothing else without a prerequisite axiom.
- prox 3y agoThat is still a presupposition you are taking, you are making a statement “that thinking is the first principle that comes from nothing.” There are host of ways to debate that philosophically.