The unknown and the knowable

[shadesofgrey]

*** Mod's note: Split from the thread on God. -sN ***

This question relates back to the beginning of the thread around page 2 or 3, but I figured it would be better placed here than in a new/identical thread. I read the exchange about objectivism and its views on agnosticism and its assertions that some things are unknowable (like the existence of god). Where does objectivism fall regarding subjects which are currently unknown and may well remain unknowable for an unknown length of time?

The idea of a god started out as some primitive person's way to explain eclipses or earthquakes or sunshine or whatever. At that time, it was unknown information, but the idea of a god seemed to fill a gap in man's lack of understanding of the world around him (suspend for a moment the lack of advanced reasoning that primitive man possessed). Today, the idea of a god is far less rational because we have empirical proof of how most of the major physical systems of our world work. There's not as large a "gap" for man to really wonder about.

There is information today that is unknown and that indeed contradicts the known "laws" of physics/thermodynamics/etc. Quantum mechanics is the best example I can think of. The laws we made up for the macro-atomic world don't apply fully at the subatomic level. Indeed the very existence of many components of "elementary" particles (quarks, neutrinos, bosons, etc) has never been empirically proven on any real level. The best we have to my knowledge is an electromagnetic

"signature" that SOMETHING happened when some atoms collided in a particle accelerator and that something is different than what was there originally. Nothing measurable or directly observable. Just an indication that a situation had changed over time (as all situations eventually do). That, and mathematical posits that something other than the particles we know of must be causing the relationships that are seen in the accelerators. There are mathematical "gaps" that are currently theorized to be filled by some tiny particle that must have SOME physical characteristics, though we cannot as yet theorize what they may be.

Since objectivism holds that the universe is "known and knowable", what would the position be on subjects which we do not understand (yet)? Not only that, but that currently we have no proof that we will EVER understand? Does objectivism assume that man will continue to progress in intelligence and technology until the whole of existence is known?

Edited July 8, 2009 by softwareNerd
Split topic

[softwareNerd]

Since objectivism holds that the universe is "known and knowable", ...

Is this a paraphrase from something Rand wrote? If so, do you have a reference?

When Rand says the universe is knowable, she's making a statement about the reality and validity of knowledge. This would be in contrast to mystics, or people who say that we can never really know "things as they really are", or people who say we cannot be certain of anything.

I don't read Rand as implying that everything about the universe will one day be known to man. Not something I've thought about much. It will be interesting to hear what some others think.

Edited July 8, 2009 by softwareNerd

[Jake_Ellison]

We're gonna die before we have the means to find out about a lot of things, so they are things we will never know: they are unknowable to us, guaranteed.

But if you're saying there "exist" "things" that don't and cannot "ever" affect "our" reality: There isn't, and there will never be, any reason whatsoever to say that there "are" "things" that do not affect in any way any of the things that are knowable by us, but yet they "exist". The declaration that such things "exist" would completely turn the meaning of the verb "to exist" upside down. We would have two categories of exist: be relevant to the knowable Universe and irrelevant to the knowable Universe.

Even if we pick a different word from "to exist", to avoid confusion, why would anyone want a word for something that is irrelevant and unknowable: thus impossible to define? Why can't you just say: oops I just contemplated nothing again? That is what you are describing, when you are describing something that is unknowable: nothing. You're certainly not describing the "thing"--"it" "is" unknowable.

[note: the quotation marks are meant to designate words that I don't think can be used logically in the context I put them in, but would apply if we would accept your theory that these "things" exist.)

[Danneskjöld]

*** Mod's note: Split from the thread on God. -sN ***

Since objectivism holds that the universe is "known and knowable", what would the position be on subjects which we do not understand (yet)? Not only that, but that currently we have no proof that we will EVER understand? Does objectivism assume that man will continue to progress in intelligence and technology until the whole of existence is known?

Well, I cannot call myself an Objectivist yet (because I do not fully understand all parts of the philosophical system yet), but I do have an answer of my own.

Everything which exists is potentially knowable to human beings. As it exists, we can find out (through observation, mathematical terms, technical means) what it is and how it "behaves" (its identity). Universe is logical and non-contradictional. So yes, theoretically we would be able to understand finally reality in full. But that does not imply, that one day we will be at this point.

Human knowledge has always been an approximation to reality, not reality itself. For example, Newton was able to describe the laws of Gravity on earth. It works and is a good description of reality. But Einstein's theory of relativity shows us, that it was only an approximation, that wheights change with speed. And that opened a whole new spectrum of reality to investigate... This kind of knowledge-growing has and will be going on until the end of the human race...

With every bit of knowledge we come closer to understand reality, but what percentage we have reached so far, no-one can tell... There are a lot of riddles left to solve, but there is no doubt, that they can be solved.

[phibetakappa]

To say something is unknowable is a self-contradiction. If you claim object X is unknowable, you have just stated some knowledge of the object.

Thus, the idea of such and such being "unknowable" is an invalid concept, i.e., what is such an idea based on? What is that idea's referent?

In effect, stating an object is unknowable is a metaphysical claim. You are saying there is something about the nature of object X, which makes it impossible for a human consciousness to detect and make identifications of.

This necessarily begs the question: how do you "know" that? how do you "know", X possesses the identity of being "unknowable." Where did you get that "knowledge?"

Further, where did you even get the knowledge of the "unknowable"? What unknowable object did you discover, gain knowledge of, to form the concept. (this is just another way of saying, what is the referent to the concept "unknowable?")

Thus, there is a big difference between making the metaphysical claim that there are such object's which possess the identity of being "unknowable" (invalid), as opposed to claiming such and such is unknown, or difficult to know, or that there are X, Y, Z barriers to knowing more about it etc.

Regards,

Edited July 8, 2009 by phibetakappa

[softwareNerd]

To say something is unknowable is a self-contradiction. If you claim object X is unknowable, you have just stated some knowledge of the object.

I guess "unknowable" is often used to refer to the causes behind something that is known.

Think of primitive man. He might have known about rain and lightning and thunder, and might have even understood some aspects of their nature: ways in which they manifest themselves and some of their effects. However, he was ignorant about the causes. At some stage of being primitive (or ultra-modern skeptic ), he might have actually considered the causes to be basically unknowable.

Aside: the notion of "God" must have seemed to plug that hole by standing in as a cause, and let allowing for apparently whimsical variation.

[phibetakappa]

I guess "unknowable" is often used to refer to the causes behind something that is known.

Think of primitive man. He might have known about rain and lightning and thunder, and might have even understood some aspects of their nature: ways in which they manifest themselves and some of their effects. However, he was ignorant about the causes. At some stage of being primitive (or ultra-modern skeptic ), he might have actually considered the causes to be basically unknowable.

Aside: the notion of "God" must have seemed to plug that hole by standing in as a cause, and let allowing for apparently whimsical variation.

I completely agree with you.

When I use the concept "object," I use it in the most general sense, much more general than "entity" or thing, because its referents can be abstract and/or concrete. I use it in terms of "object of consciousness." There is a cognitive need for such a concept when speaking in contexts of epistemology, grammar, and object-oriented programming etc.

Thus, thunder in the example is a certain type of object, just as the "causes" in general would be objects, that is to say, once a man has mentally isolated a given cause, as a single unitary cognition.

Thunder or rainbows are great examples in this context, because the actual causes were identified very late in scientific development, so we can contrast the “primitive” in the example with say, Aristotle, Leonardo De Vinci or Ben Franklin etc, who would not have known the causes of such objects.

(Noted aside: In a certain respect, all of these men can be considered primitives, in the same way babies and children can be regarded as primitives if we view men in terms of their ontogeny.)

Comparing the “primitive” in the above example, with an early scientist, what separates them is their respective philosophies. Such scientists would not regard the causes of “thunder” or “rainbows” as “unknowable,’ or attributable to god(s).

It is likely they would notate the context, in which the events occurred, such as one occurs during a rain storm and the other after one.

But, they would not divorce the “what” we know, from the “how,” we know, as in the case of the example “primitive." Such men would not conclude such phenomena are “unknowable,” meaning there is no method for which to know them.

Specifically in the context of Ben Franklin, he would regard such things in the way he regarded lightening: as such a thing for which currently no means of measurement and/or instrumentation has yet been invented.

Such men would not mentally “give up,” as a means of avoiding further explanation, as the example primitive does.

Edited July 8, 2009 by phibetakappa

[Marc K.]

One way to think of it is as part of the Benevolent Universe Premise.

The Universe is a place where knowledge is possible and values achievable. That man's mind is efficacious: capable of creating value and attaining happiness.