Asklemmy

43853 readers

1775 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

If science were empirically complete and an entity could encompass all logical scope and complexity, what epistemological theory wins? (lemmy.world)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

22 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Science is "empirically complete" when it is well funded, all unknowns are constrained in scope, and (n+1) generations of scientists produce no breakthroughs of any kind.

If a hypothetical entity could encompass every aspect of science into reasoning and ground that understanding in every aspect of the events in question, free from bias, what is this epistemological theory?

I've been reading wiki articles on epistemology all afternoon and feel no closer to the answer in the word salad in this space. It appears my favorite LLM's responses reflect a similar understanding. Maybe someone here has a better grasp on the subject?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I do not fully grasp this context or dimensionality of scope.

Most of the examples I'm thinking of are math things. A really basic example might be an infinite collection of objects, if the universe is finite. You can talk about it, and even prove things about it mathematically, but it has no physical equivalent. If I can prove that one infinity is bigger than another (which has been done) in a finite universe, is that then a form of knowledge? Some schools, like pragmatism, would actually say no.

You’ve helped me see more clearly though. I’m postulating that it is possible to statistically ground inference against infinite probability once enough background information is established and unknown scopes constrained. The data collection in-situ grounds the interlocutor against the background. Truth is known when the matter in question has a sufficient statistical constraint against this background.

You lost me a bit, but is this anything like Solomonoff induction?

I guess I’m saying intuitive reasoning has a grounding scope flaw in the present, but this flaw is solvable because the observable universe is finite and a statistical measure against it is a valid truth and condition for conscious existence within once sufficient information is known and encompassed with understanding. Does this perspective have a name?

Empiricism, plus the belief that the observable universe is tractable (which is a thing most scientists believe but nobody has proven). At least, believing you can't do intuitive reasoning without knowing the universe is textbook empiricism.