Logic is the instrument for eliminating doubt. It is not a determinant of reality by itself – it is a subsidiary or aid to proof – which considers different alternatives of a generally known subject to arrive at the reality or the concept behind its existence or functioning. This may or may not be the truth depending upon the intention and the level of understanding of the person applying logic. While in ideal cases it is directed at finding reality, it can also be used exclusively to defend one’s position or demolish the opposition, irrespective of the truth content of either.
Knowledge begins when the mental process of identification ends. When, we receive some external or internal impulse, and compare it with our past experience stored in memory, and if the comparison matches our memory, the realization of such recalled concept (without its physical subject) is called “knowledge”. While the process takes place in time, the knowledge is time invariant, though it can be updated without destroying the earlier version.
Since the process takes place in time in a closed circuit, the outcome is momentary – the mental inertial process ceases after the knowledge. Then it is frozen in time. Hence, if one accepts rebirth, it explains why we do not have memory of the previous birth. The brain, which stored the result of measurement (comparison), does not exist. This shows that logic is a process and knowledge is the outcome. Whether such outcome is true or false depends upon several factors, which can be discussed separately. There are various methods to judge logical validity of a statement. These are universal and invariant in space and time – hence universal standards. It can be shown that the so-called “knowledge of the principles of logic” are not an inconclusive (and, thus, inconvenient) “regressus ad infinitum”. These principles and rules of logic do not constitute in themselves knowledge, but are subsidiary to knowledge.
The answer to the OP is: logic, like talent, is inherent based on the level of understanding of each person, though, like skill, it gets updated with experience.
In scientific method the word “empirical” refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using observation and experiment. The term “empirical” is derived from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría). Now the question arises: experience of what? It must be based on some object that interacts with our senses through some means. There is nothing as non-material experience in science. Emotional and psychic experiences do not form part of modern science. Thus, while our experience may be correct or misleading, it cannot be uncertain. Once we know about something, our quest of that ceases. We may seek knowledge of some other thing – be willing to re-evaluate anything if there is sufficient credible evidence to do so. Even that is neither eternal nor uncertain.
Earlier, I had defined Knowledge as follows: When, due to some external or internal impulse, we remember something out of our past experience, the realization of such recalled concept (without its physical subject) is called “knowledge”. Thus, “empirical science aspire to be a type of activity that pursues knowledge” (context independent). If we have no previous experience about a subject, we cannot have knowledge about it in first perception. It is simply stored in our memory as indeterminate perception, subject to modification in future (context dependent or relative). If the outcome of perception (measurement by our sense organs) leads to a realization that is invariant in space and time, that is the “scientific knowledge”.
Heisenberg’s “Uncertainty Relation” is grossly misunderstood. When Heisenberg proposed his conjecture in 1927, Earle Kennard independently derived a different formulation, which was later generalized by Howard Robertson as: σ(q)σ(p) ≥ h/4π. This inequality says that one cannot suppress quantum fluctuations of both position σ(q) and momentum σ(p) lower than a certain limit simultaneously. The fluctuation exists regardless of whether it is measured or not implying the existence of a universal field. The inequality does not say anything about what happens when a measurement is performed. Kennard’s formulation is therefore totally different from Heisenberg’s. However, because of the similarities in format and terminology of the two inequalities, most physicists have assumed that both formulations describe virtually the same phenomenon. Modern physicists actually use Kennard’s formulation in everyday research but mistakenly call it Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. “Spontaneous” creation and annihilation of virtual particles in vacuum is possible only in Kennard’s formulation and not in Heisenberg’s formulation, as otherwise it would violate conservation laws. If it were violated experimentally, the whole of quantum mechanics would break down.
Uncertainty is not a law of Nature. We can’t create a molecule from any combination of atoms as it has to follow certain “special conditions”. The conditions may be different like the restrictions on the initial perturbation sending the signal out or the second perturbation leading to the reception of the signal back for comparison because the inputs may be different like c+v and c-v or there may be other inhibiting factors like a threshold limit for interaction. These “special conditions” and external influences that regulate and influence all actions and are unique by themselves, and not the process of measurement, create uncertainty. As the universe evolves in time, its density fluctuates from the mean density within a certain range. Thus, the degree of uncertainty also changes over time. We will discuss this later. The disturbances arising out of the process of measurement are operational (technological) in nature and not existential for the particles. Hence it does not affect the particle, but only its description with reference to observation by others.
The phrase “hypothetical or uncertain knowledge” are blatantly self-contradictory?
Knowledge, i.e., to understand and/or solve something is to predict its behavior in a given situation, when such prediction matches observed behavior. Something makes meaning only if the description remains invariant under multiple perceptions or measurements under similar conditions through a proper measurement system. In communication, as in perception, it is the class or form that remains invariant as a concept. The sequence of sound in a word or signal ceases to exist, but the meaning remains as a concept. In Nature, same atoms (or numbers signifying objects) may combine differently to produce different objects. The concept arising out of each combination acquires a name (word, message) that remains invariant through all material changes and even when they cease to exist.
This also defines reality or Truth. Reality or Truth must be invariant under similar conditions at all times. The validity of a physical theory is judged by its correspondence to reality. In a mirage, what one sees is a visual misrepresentation caused by the differential air density due to temperature gradient. This is information, which appears as invalid knowledge (viparyaasa). All invariant information consistent with physical laws, i.e. effect of distance, angle, temperature, etc. is real. Its perception as such is valid knowledge (pramaa). Since the perception of mirage is not invariant from different distances, it is not real. This differentiates knowledge from non-knowledge. How one is supposed to choose between these two rival definitional proposals of knowledge and false knowledge? Sometimes, people ascribe the label “knowledge” to “things”. But objects or things can be subject of knowledge – not knowledge per se. We can have knowledge about something – but that something is not knowledge.
The inherent uncertainty induced by the environment necessitates error-correcting codes. This is done by introducing redundancy into the digital representation to protect against corruption (syntax error). Compilation of information (pool) is bound by physical rules and all combinations are not permitted (eigenvalues). Inside an atom, the number of neutrons cannot exceed a specific ratio. This is the difference of wakeful state from the dream state, where, in the absence of external stimuli, no such restrictions (compiler) apply to the stored information in memory. Hence valid source coding is necessary.
In the mechanism of perception, each sense organ perceives different kind of impulses related to the fundamental forces of Nature. Eyes see by comparing the electromagnetic field set up by the object with that of the electrons in our cornea, which is the unit. Thus, we cannot see in total darkness because there is nothing comparable to this unit. Tongue perceives when the object dissolves in the mouth, which is macro equivalent of the weak nuclear interaction. Nose perceives when the finer parts of an object are brought in close contact with the smell buds, which is macro equivalent of the strong nuclear interaction. Skin perceives when there is motion that is macro equivalent of the gravitational interaction. Individually the perception has no meaning. They become information and acquire meaning only when they are pooled in our memory.
In the perception “this (object) is like that (the concept)”, one can describe “that” only if one has perceived it earlier. Perception requires prior measurement of multiple aspects or fields and storing the result of measurement in a centralized system (memory) to be retrieved when needed. To understand a certain aspect, we just refer to the data bank and see whether it matches with any of the previous readings or not. The answer is either yes or no. This makes a binary system. Wrong – variant in time and space – concepts introduce the couple: knowledge and false knowledge.
One problem I find with most people and modern concepts is that, they prefer general remarks and avoid being precise. The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world – true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This leaves many aspects and terms vague – you have pointed to some of them.
Comments are closed.