Knowledge Map Equation

So far, I have figured that all reality changes mostly outside and partially inside human perception.
All-knowing is not a human trait. Given.

What I'm trying to plot out is a good mathematical equation that will illustrate not only the logical given of what is, but also a process of action that can take place for various mind-sets. Ie, you may have someone that can have an experience, confabulate and self-deceive themselves into believing and remembering and feeling what actually didn't happen and what did happen will be forgotten; whereas, there also exists a person who can perceive an experience for what it is, find out what good can come from it and utilize that experience which is not changeable, and can be appreciated towards a vibrant and connected perception of the world around them.

It's a tough task ahead, anyone have any ideas? :/

For one, knowledge =/= reality. Given

therefore Knowledge-Xfactor = reality. It would have to because the Xfactor would exist within the reality side of the equation and not the Knowledge side.

Knowledge = reality+Xfactor.
This would mean that a person would have to perceive reality in order to gain knowledge. But, there also exists change inside reality, but may not automatically be reflected within knowledge.
Knowledge(-change) = reality+Xfactor.

therefore, Knowledge = reality+Xfactor(+change).

I'm not sure whether or not this can make sense, but perhaps a revising of mathematics beyond that of algebra might help.

This is pretty important, it illustrates analytically how any person can never know everything, and therefore must continually learn at every given moment for their entire life, and must promote awareness OF the moment at every sensory input such as seeing, touching, tasting, etc. To also include cross-associative memorization such as all things that can assist in memory of past moments.

Eventually, I'd also like to get into imagination, visualization, intuition and the like, but I have to deal with the basics first. :/

Tough, I know. :3

Perhaps you should discuss this on the imageboards.

The one thing man cannot ever know is that which is beyond the perceptions of man. Unknown unknowns as oppose to known unknowns, as it were. Since we cannot really begin to postulate about things beyond our perception realistically, we can never gain any knowledge concerning such things. Thus we can never be knowingly all-knowing.
You could consider the case wherein that which is within our perceptions is all there is to perceive, in that case it would be possible to be all knowing, but we can't know that what we percieve is All. There could always be something else we simply cannot conceive of even knowing that fact can't change anything.

>>4
ah, but if what you say is true...that would mean that you would have experience and knowledge in the area of knowing that we don't know everything is unimportant. You see, you've used what you know to explain something that you don't know fully. And that my friend, leads me back to the purpose of this equation. How to get from knowing limitations to integrating external elements and adapting and possibly evolving. :/

It doesn't have to do with whether or not this subject is important or not, I just want to see what some people's opinions ARE not whether they are right or wrong; good or bad; important or unimportant.

There is a faint sense that I get sometimes that resembles antithesis. Whenever someone tells me it can't be done, in my mind I force myself to believe it can and I move towards accomplishing this and it comes to life and proves the other individual was incorrect about what they knew about the question I asked.

So I'll ask it again, if there is a way to know that we cannot fully know everything, nor that what we know is full in content and context, we would necessarily be compelled to move towards acquiring further information to integrate into more of the same. What would be an equation for such a task?
How would we go from being ignorant (which is what all humans begin as) to realize that we don't know everything (self-awareness) and pursue the questions that will lead us to new integrations?

It's a simple question, but that would require brain activity. I apologize, I forgot that most consumers don't like to use their brains when it comes time to decision-making. I'll gladly take my case elsewhere so it may be appreciated as a challenge to meet instead of some overwhelming force to cower away from. :/

Are you trying to argue that we can change reality with our minds? Obviously we can only change our perceptions of it.

not science jesus fuck delete this please

Try composing a coherent argument.

>>6
I'm not arguing anything. I'm simply asking if there is an equation that I can postulate that reality has more to offer towards knowledge, and as an added benefit, knowledge then can assist in changing what we perceive as reality.

There didn't used to be bridges at one point, and now there are. That didn't just come from no where. There was an opportunity to form, from a possibility, a reality where one did not previously exist.

The equation would be something like long division most likely to show how reality can function in tandem with knowledge where both benefit mutually. It is something I can use when I make the argument that just knowing isn't enough, and just observing isn't enough. BOTH must be working together in mutual cooperation with one another. The thing that WE as humans DO have some pull with IS knowledge. We can control what we know, by how we perceive and interpret the incoming information. It is my position that it may be possible to by-pass certain doubts and uncertainties of performance and overcome seemingly impossible boundaries. To in fact challenge what IS known by achieving what once was unknown. The process of this to most people would be uncertain and therefore fearful; I already use this to a slight extent, but I would like to get some info regarding a mathematical formula that analytically illustrates not only the process of what does happen, but what it will take to accomplish a goal with greater probability of success.

I'm already using my "Choice of Energy" formula for when I push carts at my part time job. It works out very well. I hope I'm not asking too much of people here on /sci/ this may be something that requires a higher form of math that has yet to be developed. I may have to request these possibilities of mathematical formulae from a Chaotician. :/

Your pursuit is probably hindered by Gödel. And you are just going to end up rediscovering the laws of physics.

>>9
It's called scientific method.

1: Experiment
2: Observe
3: Form hypotheses
4: Test

I just saved you 2000 years of philosophising there sport, no need to thank me.

>>10
Please, if you seriously think I'm going after physics you clearly didn't observe the title of this thread.

>>11
Yes, Scientific Method. I know it all too well as it is precisely what I've been using to 1) hypothesize 2) create axiomatic experiment 3) Observe results 4) record results 5) conclusion 6) repeat.

...and no, you didn't just save me 2000 years of philosophizing there "sport", and thank you for wasting both of our time and accomplishing nothing but boasting your own pride of bragging about something you think you know. :/

But here is the issue I repeatedly find; Even with continual experiments I run into an "interim" issue with points of recognition. It appears like recognizing step one and then step two just to find out later that step two was actually step five and step one consisted of one thru four. Just as with "intention" there isn't just one choice or one possible outcome, but quite a few choices made from even more options that were considered from what results WERE observed resulting in a plethora of consequences. You see, there is quite a laundry list of what the brain does physically, but also what the mind CAN do cognitively as opposed to "just does". Physics is the expression of "just does" where as mind is the expression of "could do", "does do", "did do", and "what if...?". What I'm trying to extrapolate from this data is what CAN happen and what DOES happen. I'm also looking into what can habitually happen, but that's another experiment all together. I know that knowledge is limited which is why I'm able to continue learning, but what does it take to 1) perpetuate that, 2) reinforce integrity and confidence, 3) build upon that belief, and 4) hold that belief in a flexible state instead of a rigid state confidently.

You see my dilemma? :/
But like I said before, I may be wasting my time here on /sci/, there clearly aren't any intellectuals that have such a wide opened mind. I mostly spot those that are so closed-minded they even believe that they aren't. What fools they be. :/

if you are perfect, then surely there is no need to do anything to become perfect. You are as you are and need do nothing but die. I, on the other hand, am imperfect and must strive for perfection, but I being imperfect have no true concept of perfection, therefore that vision of perfection changes repeatedly and is therefore imperfect. A perfect reflection of what I am. And what is the perfect reflection of what I am not? God. Perfect, invulnerable, invisible, intangible, all-knowing, invincible, all-powerful, and all-forgiving. If there be more to this to be found, it is only because of my imperfection in the details; yet another perfect reflection of who I am.

God exists so that I may know myself. Without God, I would assume myself as God, that which I am not. And if I should stray for a moment out of selfishness being that which is human, it would be a momentary lapse of insanity as an expression of divine imitation.

"Imitation is a form of flattery."

Yo momma's phat nigga booty + dis dick = i ain't payin no child suport nigga u stupid.

how bout that equation

>>12
You can't hold a belief in a state of flexibility AND build upon it AND reinforce it. A state of flexibility necessarily dictates that the other two can't be achieved.
However, I think that some level of adaptibility can be found in analogy and proverb.

>>14
interesting perspective. What about inclusivity? You see, every time I come up with a set theory, I find something that moves outside of that theory so I have to rewrite the previous set theory to include the newly discovered information. The sphere of theory continues to expand, growing more and more ambiguous so as to include specific events as well as other possibilities. You may not be able to build upon included theories, but you might be able to build upon the expansion-inclusion-theory. You might recognize this from forensic science in criminology when there is a crime scene and you have evidence at 15 feet, double your perimeter. It allows for the possibility of new evidence to be possibly collected while also dividing the possibility of cross-contamination and transference.

There are so many theories that are metaphysical. I wonder if there are people that have wrote this stuff down before? Perhaps they are more schooled in this subject than I am. Meh, I'll see.

>>13
YOUR EQUATION = YOUR LEVEL OF INTELLIGENT EXPRESSION.

how bout that equation

>>12
Well we don't know exactly what happens, that's a paradox in science. You can find out a rainbow is caused by diffraction of different frequencies of light, but then what causes light? Electro-magnetic pulses? But then what causes electro-magnetism and so on...

All we can do is employ ockham's razor, which was elaborated apon by Descartes to yield scientific method, but I suppose ockham's razor is a more relevant point...

The justification for ockham's razor is that we have no other choice, if it's the only conclusion we're left with that has no contradictions then it is justifed to assume, note "assume", it is valid. If ice is cold and we are hot we have no choice but to assume putting ice in our drinks will help cool us. This is not certainty, neither is it a case of "just does", but rather a case of "it's the only thing that just doesn't". As early as Isaac Newton european scientists had mastered this conclusion and readily admitted that their apparently certain conclusions may in the future be disproven and replaced by a better theory (which classic physics was) but by the 19th century scientists were habitually assuming certain conclusions were certainties and developing a flawed culture of science which has led to some confusion about these matters today.

So the answer I suppose is our minds are inherantly limited, what "can" happen is just a result of our limited ability to process all the facts, even if improbability is an inherant property of the universe.

"aren't any intellectuals that have such a wide opened mind"
cool elitism bro

"God exists so that I may know myself. Without God, I would assume myself as God, that which I am not."
im pretty sure god loves science and wants you to be more humble

>>13
get the fuck out of here nigger

>>17
And yes, you are right. If by all means of observation you aren't able to discern what something is, observe what it is not. Albert Einstein discovered Atoms because of pollen bumping other pollen in water and discovered that the atoms in the water were causing the very light pollen to move.

As far as your statements go, these are very good explanations if I do not wish to delve further into the unknown.

If wanting improvement and progress in my life instead of complacency and dis-integration is what you are referring to as "elitist", than yes, you would be correct.

And when you say "im pretty sure god loves science and wants you to be more humble"; yes, that's the purpose of what I just said. I'm not God, I'm human, fallible, not all-knowing, not all-omnipresent, vulnerable, etc, etc. If God is everything that I'm not, what is left is me. It is another way of seeing what I am by looking at what I'm obviously not.

As far as Ockham's Razor goes, even this principle is, in my opinion, a cop-out. It's no different than saying, just because I can't figure this out today means that I should leave it as is and go no further, or at least that's the way you were using it in your paragraph. If you can know that you can never truly know everything, surely, there is a mathematical expression that can be made to represent something metaphysical. And inb4 comparing physical reality to metaphysical reality (which is impractical, btw) Descartes was a solipsist that believed the universe was "mechanical", but if mechanics is what is on a person's mind predominantly, is being human? Was he able to distinguish himself apart from the universe or was he an inclusive part of it? What does that tell you?

I know I am not who I wish to become. If that were true, than I've already reached my goal and there is no further need to make choices to reach a goal I've already achieved. I may now lay down and die.

And you might be asking, "why make an equation about something that does not necessarily matter?" I would respond, that's why there was resistance when introducing a symbol to represent the presence of the absence of a thing. Zero. You could almost consider zero to be the equal sign. That which is not present has an equivalent to that which is. Even if we don't fully know what IS present or what IS NOT present, at least we can know for certain that we don't fully know...which means we need to find out.

>>18
^* African American

speaking of African Americans,

Anyone know what Racists are grateful for?
niggers. :/

...oh oh oh, I mean African Americans. :/

>>21
without niggers, who would racists beat to death and hang in trees? :/

Thank God for Niggers. :/

http://www.iwantapal.com/