←back to thread

303 points FigurativeVoid | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
ndndjdjdn ◴[] No.41847590[source]
The problem is the word "know" being overloaded.

First person know is belief. To some extent: this is just faith! Yes we have faith that the laws of physics wont change tomorrow, or we remember yesterday happened etc. Science tries to push that faith close to fact by verifying the fuck out of everthing. But we will never know why anything...

The other "know" is some kind of concept of absolute truth and a coincidence that what someone belives matches this. Whether that coincidence is chance or astute observations or in the paper's case: both.

replies(1): >>41849688 #
EasyMark ◴[] No.41849688[source]
Maybe, but it’s still a useful overload. No one wants to be pedantic every time they say they know something. It’s more of a spectrum which is really my own overloaded expression. My other one is “it’s a probabilistic matter, there’s no absolute here”
replies(1): >>41851554 #
1. EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK ◴[] No.41851554[source]
So the statement is "I know every knowledge is a probabilistic spectrum". Sounds a liar paradox to me.