> Belief is unchangeable and knowledge changes with research and new
> evidence. For example , my belief that God is sitting on a cloud will
> stick in the face of evidence to the contrary , unless of course my
> mentor changes my belief. But knowledge that God is sitting on a cloud
> changes on new research and evidence ---God is up there in yau-calabi
> space -- God is intrinsically in everything and doesn't need space to
> exist in.
The Calabi-Yau space is so incredibly small that it permeates
absolutely everything in this universe. This is the mechanism behind
God's transcendental omnipresence--because the Calabi-Yau space is
'beyond' our 4-D space--and immanent omnipresence--because it is so
small that the whole of it exists throughout this 4-D universe. God
is not 'just' up there; but, rather, everywhere. However, every
'thing' does need space in which to exist and most of God's existence,
which is in the Calabi-Yau Space, is not bound to the temporal
dimension and is, therefore, eternal by virtue of being atemporal--
without time.
> Belief is faith and knowledge is understanding.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 2:08 AM, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The question why knowledge is distinctively valuable has an important
> > historical precedent in Plato's Meno in which Socrates raises the
> > question of why knowledge is more valuable than mere true belief.
> > Initially, we might appeal to the fact that knowledge appears to be of
> > more practical use than true belief in order to mark this difference
> > in value, but, as Socrates notes, this claim is far from obvious on
> > closer inspection. After all, a true belief about the correct way to
> > Larissa is surely of just as much practical use as knowledge of the
> > way to Larissa—both will get us to our destination. Given that we
> > clearly do value knowledge more than mere true belief, the fact that
> > there is no obvious explanation of why this should be so creates a
> > problem. We will call the issue of why knowledge is more valuable than
> > mere true belief, the Meno problem.
>
> > You can get the rest here -http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-value/
>
> > I somehow doubt I will be causing much mouse clicking in posting the
> > link! I did some work on knowledge justification and value whilst
> > bored out of my tree, recovering from a serious injury. I was
> > discovering most of academic study is 'witterpiss for wuckfits' at the
> > time. There's a big snag in the Meno problem in that it restricts us
> > to argument not much informed by science. We could sit down all day
> > trying to define knowledge, which might be nice under the Greek sun
> > with some Rakis, local beer and imported coffee. No one has defined
> > knowledge - rather as we don't have a precise decimal for pi. There
> > are, of course, many definitions.
>
> > There are lots of teasers like this in philosophy. My take on this
> > is :
> > 1.there are some things I believe true and have tested scientifically
> > or in mathematical proof - these I trust as knowledge
> > 2. there are some things I think true and can't do the above with.
> > 3. etc. etc. on what I consider reliable or barking.
>
> > we worry too much about this kind of stuff and not enough about the
> > issues of the condition of ignorance.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário