All knowledge already exists...

[ForbidenRea]

Never, give a frog hormonal satisfactions.

[Pam Seeback]

MV, as an expansion of my previous post, I offer this allegorical vision of the I AM of Knowledge that already exists of the principles of I AM that are real [unchanging] and of the principles of I AM that are unreal [ever changing]:

Regardless of the depth of the wisdom attained in this life of the individual spirit of I AM, the veil of breath, the cause of attachment, remains. Which means every I AM is attached to HER as long as It inhales and exhales Her breath of sense awareness.

To the one who has lifted the veil of all earthly attachments except that of the sense breath of Her, the I AM is of moment by moment attachments born of I AM acknowledgment, which is SELF love, which is the breath of spirit touching spirit in the name of I AM THAT.

There comes a moment when She, the cause of attachment to life in individual I AM consciousness, is withdrawn by the I AM and arises no more. For the I AM who is of depth wisdom of Itself, there is no fear of this withdrawal of Her, for It knows the truth of the core of Itself, the truth of the female principle of the male principle, eternally moving of, and as, I AM. This is the saving/liberating revelation of She as Wisdom, that of the infinite and eternal movement of the substance and essence of Spirit in each and every and all realms of I AM expansion.

***

As the breath of attachment born of Ignorance of dualism, She was both loved and hated of He who is Her interpreter. As the breath of attachment to Wisdom born of the Singular Eye/I, She is both lover and beloved of He who is Her interpreter, "and the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely."

[Cahoot]

Yes, all knowledge already exists.

The timing of that statement does not matter. Now or in the future, all knowledge already exists. When a little knowledge exists then that comprises all the knowledge that exists. When much more knowledge exists, then that comprises all the knowledge that exists.

Infinite knowledge, of which we remain unaware, exists outside of time within infinite potentiality. That knowledge will exist to awareness when conditions permit. The discoverer, and aspects of the discoverer, function as conditions by which timeless knowledge manifests. One discovers knowledge through experience and thought rather than creating knowledge. When one learns the truth one has discovered the truth, not created it.

For example, knowledge of thermonuclear reactions and devices existed outside of time within infinite potentiality. When conditions permitted, that knowledge manifested in time.

[Pam Seeback]

Cahoot: When one learns the truth one has discovered the truth, not created it.

This is the wisdom that saves a man from believing he must become something in order to be loved, accepted, etc. It is the wisdom of Self Love and of Self Rest. The man who discovers he is purposed to be the discoverer of God's Spirit of I AM has found the Holy Grail of Himself.

[eyekwah]

Perception defines reality. There is no such thing as absolute truth.

I'll give you an example. Around the 1400s, it was common to believe the earth was flat, because empirical evidence suggested that the ground was roughly flat in every direction without signs of curvature. When the theory was suggested that the earth is round, empirical evidence supported both theories equally. Satellites weren't around during those times, so obviously there was no way to verify whose theory was correct you see.

So which theory was right? We know that the earth is round, but when no means to distinguish one theory from the other existed, both theories were correct. If you apply this to today's theories, we might find that in 50 years that our current theories are overly simplistic by comparison to what new evidence reveals the universe to be far more complicated than it already is. However in this moment, an overly simplistic model shares no difference with another more complicated theory if there exist no means to test a theory in such a way as to distinguish one from the other. I won't go too deeply into the details, but theoretic computer science strongly suggests that future advances in computer science can only be achieved once logic is left fuzzy and uncertain (fuzzy logic + quantum computing).

Even quantum theory seems to indicate that observation holds the key to reality, which might mean that Berkley was right afterall. Nothing really exists unless it is being thought of or directly observed. We're all in a gigantic matrix where the computer unloads any unused content. For all intents and purposes, unthought and unseen does not exist.

[cousinbasil]

Penrose has suggested at least three kinds of existence: physical, mental, and Platonic. This is not new, but his example of a Mandelbrot set is especially convincing (to me). A Mandelbrot-like set cannot be said to exist physically, and its amazing complexity when generated by a computer shows that it cannot exist mentally, since it would be impossible for a human brain to simultaneously picture even the small part of it that a computer printout shows. Yet the structure exists, so it must be on some other level, which is the mathematical or Platonic one. In this sense it is timeless, and was not invented but discovered by Mandelbrot and even earlier researchers.

[eyekwah]

Mandelbrot set doesn't exist anymore than infinity exists. It's a concept, and concepts exist at a mental level. It's true you can't possibly think to visualize properly a Mandelbrot set, but that doesn't mean you can't "get it."

It's like reading "while (true) ;" in c++ and claiming you can't wrap your head around what it does. Conceptualizing often entails symbolism and abstraction -- Seeing the forest from the trees so to speak. Mathematics is simply the set of concepts we build on top of number theory, and number theory came from representing quantities of objects which is very much real, not virtual.

I think mankind is reaching a threshold where we can no longer develop new concepts based on empirical evidence and practical applications. In order to realize new technologies and new feats, we have to be able to develop concepts with little to no correspondence to reality, for example, how would you go about writing a message which given certain assumptions, an alien could read and understand. In order to accomplish this, you have to be able to think outside the normal scope.

[cousinbasil]

Mandelbrot set doesn't exist anymore than infinity exists. It's a concept, and concepts exist at a mental level. It's true you can't possibly think to visualize properly a Mandelbrot set, but that doesn't mean you can't "get it."

You are missing the point, obviously. The Mandelbrot set exists, has always existed, in a Platonic sense, even before there was someone to contemplate it or conceptualize it. There are concepts which can be had in their entirety - these exist at a mental level. Concepts are by nature not timeless; Platonic things are timeless. Infinity is not a well-defined thing like a circle - it would be debatable to call it Platonic the same way as a circle is. Again, this distinction has been adopted by Penrose for utilitarian reasons, and it is not original to him. You can never truly grasp the entire Mandelbrot set, yet it is well defined, even simply defined, much like a circle or a square is simply defined. The idea here is to separate different but equally valid types of discovery. Ideas are mental, for example - Mandelbrot is not. It can never be fully mapped out, but it does not change.

[Blair]

Perception defines reality. There is no such thing as absolute truth.

You are asserting that as the truth though. Are you sure its not just your perception?

[mental vagrant]

He is stating his mind, by definition he can only state his perception of the world and by both our perceptions this remains. I'm yet to read a formal proposition by the poster, so that we can try to disect this as a community. Untill then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWwHc-dzU4I

[eyekwah]

He is stating his mind, by definition he can only state his perception of the world and by both our perceptions this remains. I'm yet to read a formal proposition by the poster, so that we can try to disect this as a community. Untill then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWwHc-dzU4I

You want a proof? There is none. How can you prove that reality is shaped by our minds when no "real" reality exists to establish definitively the differences present? They say the color yellow is determined by our developing minds as infants. It'd be like determining who's shade of yellow is the "true" shade of yellow. The answer of course is that color is interpreted by our minds from vague photon wavelength input into our eyes.

Perhaps you could measure the "yellowness" of the photons entering our eyes, but it wouldn't change the fact that our interpretation of the color yellow is fundamentally different because it is ultimately our minds interpret it that way.

[cousinbasil]

Mathematics is simply the set of concepts we build on top of number theory, and number theory came from representing quantities of objects which is very much real, not virtual.

But this point is not true. The natural numbers (positive integers 1, 2, 3, ...) themselves are abstractions, whether that factored in their historical appearance or not. For instance, suppose they arose from counting wives or children or (other) livestock. An organism is clearly not one thing in an absolute sense; neither is anything (physical) else, so the number 1 on which the natural numbers are based becomes an abstraction (i.e., more virtual than real). As facts like this became apparent, mathematicians have had to justify the concept of the counting numbers. There are various ways to do this. Set theory provides one way: First, define the null or empty set Ø={}. Associate this with the number 0. Next, define the set {Ø}. This is not the same as Ø itself, since Ø contains no members, and {Ø} contains one member. Now define the set {Ø, {Ø}}. This has two members, and so on.

The point is that mathematics is anything but based on number theory, if number theory is considered to be something which issued forth from the physical world. Another example is the irrational numbers, which are precisely those numbers which cannot be represented by ratios of the counting numbers. These were the mystical numbers that got men killed, men who saw them as necessary to expressing the diagonal of a unit square. The irony is that the square itself is an abstraction, and the diagonal of the unit square is the square root of 2 (the first irrational number) only if space itself is Euclidean, which it may not be.

Also the complex numbers were a "discovery" ridiculed by contemporaries of their discoverers. That they were discovered and not invented means they existed prior to their discovery. Since there is no reason to assign a particular time to the beginning of their existence in the Platonic realm, they are timeless. Yet the square root of -1 has not even a tangential representation in the physical world. It was denoted by i which stood for imaginary to emphasize this fact. No one during the development of Complex number theory (based on algebra using numbers of the form a+bi where a and b are Real numbers) needed or even suspected any correlation between these numbers and the physical world. (Complex numbers are those that contain a Real component plus an Imaginary component).

Therefore, there was physical existence, Platonic (timeless) existence, and in a separate realm, mental existence. It turns out that the Complex numbers correspond to reality in a deep and profound way, perhaps even more closely that the Real numbers alone.

It can easily be said that Complex numbers have always had their mysterious correspondence to the real world, and that it only became apparent when the tiny realms of the real world were discovered and Quantum mechanics developed to describe it.

So on the question of does all knowledge already exist, one has to decide which of these three forms of existence to which one is referring.

[cousinbasil]

Perhaps you could measure the "yellowness" of the photons entering our eyes, but it wouldn't change the fact that our interpretation of the color yellow is fundamentally different because it is ultimately our minds interpret it that way.

You can argue this, but it it difficult to prove. You are saying if one could suddenly be put into another's head and view the world, the color "scheme" might be unrecognizable.

But consider this: the visible light range of wavelengths is nearly the same for everyone. The reason is that this is the relatively small band of frequencies to which water is not opaque - we all have common ancestors who emerged from the sea, and therefore sight organs would have developed to perceive that range which would be of any use. Hence, we all see water as "clear." In addition, if visible light is made up of a continuous range of wavelengths, why do most if not all humans perceive the spectrum as a series of distinct bands? It is not unreasonable to assume if we see the same number of bands that we perceive the colors themselves the same as well (quality in addition to quantity.)

[mental vagrant]

He is stating his mind, by definition he can only state his perception of the world and by both our perceptions this remains. I'm yet to read a formal proposition by the poster, so that we can try to disect this as a community. Untill then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWwHc-dzU4I

You want a proof? There is none. How can you prove that reality is shaped by our minds when no "real" reality exists to establish definitively the differences present? They say the color yellow is determined by our developing minds as infants. It'd be like determining who's shade of yellow is the "true" shade of yellow. The answer of course is that color is interpreted by our minds from vague photon wavelength input into our eyes.

Perhaps you could measure the "yellowness" of the photons entering our eyes, but it wouldn't change the fact that our interpretation of the color yellow is fundamentally different because it is ultimately our minds interpret it that way.

If a frequency can be detected it is imaginary even through extrasensory aparatus this principle remains, doesn't it? Yellow isn't ubiquitous, such a simple definition such as a word is more the bandwidth but even the bandwidths some number of people percieve might differ slightly due some number of factors. cousinbasil please proceed i'm eager to hear.

[jbn01]

True. If it didn't exist its not knowledge and since it exists , its "all". Small bills by return mail pwees :)

[eyekwah]

The point is that mathematics is anything but based on number theory, if number theory is considered to be something which issued forth from the physical world.

Well what I said was sort of a half-truth, since number theory came later, though without putting a name to it, that was what it was. A system to represent the quantity of objects. Since the practicality of the system required numbers both large and small, it incorporated the rather simple but genius concept of leaving it open-ended, allowing numbers to be represented without even knowing if there existed that amount of anything in the world.

While it's true that numbers are an abstraction, we're about as close to the real world as we can be without having to visualize a variable number of goats together in order to see how many there are. Zero and negative numbers are far bigger abstractions than the set of positive integers. I'm pretty sure numbers weren't formed from counting empty sets or there would have been some rather intellectual sheepherders back in the day.

But consider this: the visible light range of wavelengths is nearly the same for everyone. The reason is that this is the relatively small band of frequencies to which water is not opaque - we all have common ancestors who emerged from the sea, and therefore sight organs would have developed to perceive that range which would be of any use. Hence, we all see water as "clear." In addition, if visible light is made up of a continuous range of wavelengths, why do most if not all humans perceive the spectrum as a series of distinct bands? It is not unreasonable to assume if we see the same number of bands that we perceive the colors themselves the same as well (quality in addition to quantity.)

You make a good point. However, a good argument is far from solid proof. In order to prove what you say is true, not only would one have to actually have the ability to jump into another's head and view the world, but you'd have to prove that you see the world through his or her mind in every sense that matters. Unsurprisingly, I think that proving you were still you and not the person who's head you inhabited would be more complicated still.

Is it such a stretch to claim that such a thing cannot ever be proven or disproven?

If a frequency can be detected it is imaginary even through extrasensory aparatus this principle remains, doesn't it? Yellow isn't ubiquitous, such a simple definition such as a word is more the bandwidth but even the bandwidths some number of people percieve might differ slightly due some number of factors. cousinbasil please proceed i'm eager to hear.

Colorblindness is an excellent example of your point. Thank you for bringing it up. If someone wanted to pretend to be colorblind, would there ever truly be a way to demonstrate that he is not? At best, you could create a statistical analysis of all the times that person correctly indicated a color and determine the probability of a man who is colorblind being able to casually guess that color correctly and therefore determine the probability of someone lying about being colorblind. That's not defining reality. It's a bit more like stumbling in the dark until you stub your toe.

[cousinbasil]

You make a good point. However, a good argument is far from solid proof.... Is it such a stretch to claim that such a thing cannot ever be proven or disproven?

Not at all. In fact, I recall having the same thought about color perception and realizing almost instantly that it could never be proven or disproven. I was really reacting to what you initially said:

Perhaps you could measure the "yellowness" of the photons entering our eyes, but it wouldn't change the fact that our interpretation of the color yellow is fundamentally different because it is ultimately our minds interpret it that way.

Here you say it is a fact that our interpretation of the color yellow is fundamentally different - I took it to mean different from one another's interpretation. If it can't be proven or disproven, then its factuality is in question - that's my only point. I was just suggesting some evidence that one's hard-wiring is similar to another's, which could lead one to suppose the "interpretations" are similar, if not the same.

While it's true that numbers are an abstraction, we're about as close to the real world as we can be without having to visualize a variable number of goats together in order to see how many there are. Zero and negative numbers are far bigger abstractions than the set of positive integers. I'm pretty sure numbers weren't formed from counting empty sets or there would have been some rather intellectual sheepherders back in the day.

I agree that zero and negative numbers are bigger abstractions. And of course I wasn't suggesting set theory was behind the discovery of the counting, or natural, numbers. But a little thought shows you just how abstract the positive integers are. If you say there are 2 of anything, for example, you have already abstracted. A tree does not equal another tree. "Two trees" means "two objects we classify as trees." "Object" is then your abstract thing that is being counted, of type "tree." The set theory mention is just to show how the concept of the counting numbers can be motivated without requiring any physical existence of anything - it is one way to generate the counting numbers.

[mental vagrant]

You make a good point. However, a good argument is far from solid proof.... Is it such a stretch to claim that such a thing cannot ever be proven or disproven?

Not at all. In fact, I recall having the same thought about color perception and realizing almost instantly that it could never be proven or disproven. I was really reacting to what you initially said:

Perhaps you could measure the "yellowness" of the photons entering our eyes, but it wouldn't change the fact that our interpretation of the color yellow is fundamentally different because it is ultimately our minds interpret it that way.

Here you say it is a fact that our interpretation of the color yellow is fundamentally different - I took it to mean different from one another's interpretation. If it can't be proven or disproven, then its factuality is in question - that's my only point. I was just suggesting some evidence that one's hard-wiring is similar to another's, which could lead one to suppose the "interpretations" are similar, if not the same.

While it's true that numbers are an abstraction, we're about as close to the real world as we can be without having to visualize a variable number of goats together in order to see how many there are. Zero and negative numbers are far bigger abstractions than the set of positive integers. I'm pretty sure numbers weren't formed from counting empty sets or there would have been some rather intellectual sheepherders back in the day.

I agree that zero and negative numbers are bigger abstractions. And of course I wasn't suggesting set theory was behind the discovery of the counting, or natural, numbers. But a little thought shows you just how abstract the positive integers are. If you say there are 2 of anything, for example, you have already abstracted. A tree does not equal another tree. "Two trees" means "two objects we classify as trees." "Object" is then your abstract thing that is being counted, of type "tree." The set theory mention is just to show how the concept of the counting numbers can be motivated without requiring any physical existence of anything - it is one way to generate the counting numbers.

There might be some objects that we can count as one two three. Fundamental things.

[cousinbasil]

There might be some objects that we can count as one two three. Fundamental things.

I am trying to think of an example of that. What is fundamental? A hydrogen atom? That would have not been known when the counting numbers arose. It would seem that in our macroscopic world of physical things there might be such things that do not require much abstraction, like Coke cans, manufactured things.

What I have been trying to illustrate is the different types of existence. One could easily say that the counting numbers have always been there, waiting to be discovered. They are called the natural numbers. They do not change. They exist in a way the physical things which they are used to count do not. That is two kinds of existence (another abstraction!) The arena in which one type of existence is used to delimit the other is the mental arena, obviously distinct from either.

[eyekwah]

Not at all. In fact, I recall having the same thought about color perception and realizing almost instantly that it could never be proven or disproven. I was really reacting to what you initially said:

Then I symbolically shake your hand. My apologies if I misunderstood what you meant.

I agree that zero and negative numbers are bigger abstractions. And of course I wasn't suggesting set theory was behind the discovery of the counting, or natural, numbers. But a little thought shows you just how abstract the positive integers are. If you say there are 2 of anything, for example, you have already abstracted. A tree does not equal another tree. "Two trees" means "two objects we classify as trees." "Object" is then your abstract thing that is being counted, of type "tree." The set theory mention is just to show how the concept of the counting numbers can be motivated without requiring any physical existence of anything - it is one way to generate the counting numbers.

Again, good point. I didn't even really think of that, but you're absolutely right. The moment in which you label the number of objects as being "2", you're attributing a value which could be applied to any object like you could call any object blue or "with more than one head."

[oxytocinNA]

All knowledge already exists... do you think this is true or false? Now you may wonder why I'm asking this. Really I'm just trying to get an idea of how intelligent the people here really are.

Well in the spirit of this post - I can only respond in this way:
It is a false statement. Knowledge is abstract. It requires a mind to assemble observations. Until a mind makes the observations to form the abstractions - that particilar knowledge is not yet assembled.
Abstraction is different from existents.
Ok that was a bit generous for such ...hmmm ... ridiculous intent topped only by another thread:
"are you smart"
"Do you think that you are smart?
Yes or no is fine. A paragraph is also fine."