4 ms·
It's a decision of axioms. You are free to believe any set of axioms, because they will per definition be unprovable (Gödel et al.), so the word ignorance doesn
by mensetmanusman 3y ago
It's a decision of axioms. You are free to believe any set of axioms, because they will per definition be unprovable (Gödel et al.), so the word ignorance doesn't quite apply (arguably).
Observing the behavior of fundamental particles following laws is different than touching the laws themselves. Analogous to observing this website is different than seeing the backend code.
- satvikpendem 3y agoArgument from ignorance [0], not ignorance per se. And as far as axioms, sure you can believe anything, but that doesn't not make them necessarily true in reality. I could believe that the earth is governed by an infallible, omnipotent Flying Spaghetti Monster but that doesn't mean His Noodliness exists. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
- mensetmanusman 3y agoIt can be confusing when discussing knowable truth with unknowable truth. :)
- satvikpendem 3y agoUnknowable truth is an oxymoron which is why I prefer to deal with the knowable.
- mensetmanusman 3y agoThere is an entire area of mathematics devoted to unknowable truths ;)
- satvikpendem 3y agoSure, I'm talking about the physical world however.
- mensetmanusman 3y agoThe physical world follows laws that are arguably unknowable (but true, as in there), and it has a history that is arguably unknowable (but true, as in it happened).