A Long While.

[bowlich]

I haven't posted anything in a long while... so...

Does knowledge exist and we discover it; or do we create knowledge for ourselves?

Comments

[thalandor46]

I think this is very dependant on the type of knowledge you refer to. To start, in terms of scientific knowledge, there is a shit ton of science out there that has been "discovered". Chances are that some of it is correct, and thus the natural knowlege of things exists to be discovered. Chances are also that some science incorrect, and thus it is created by ourselves for ourselves.

And then there are, if you will, "trivial" knowledges. For example, computer knowledge. Knowing the many different aspects of a computer is knowledge that did not always exist, as the computer itself has not always existed. Rather, the knowledge has been created as the computer was created and has evolved. Granted, the deeper you dive into it, the more and more it becomes knowledge that was originally discovered, such as the concepts of voltage and things like that. But knowing how to navigate Windows doesnt require this discovered knowledge, but rather the created knowledge.

That's my 2 cents, or my interpretation of it anyway :P

[dragnl0rd]

Both, IMO.

There is currently no "law of conservation of information." Knowledge is created through theories, tested through experimentation, and revised as it is mapped to real world equivalents, and sometimes even forgotten if it is not passed on before all containers of it die or break. (Book burnings and the dark ages anyone?)

However, it is unproven as to the original source of the information. Is it created by a sequence of synapse-firings that must be precise to such a degree that probability mathematics deems it impossible? Or is it written in the very fabric of matter and energy, only being perceived as an idea when an individual or community's evolution reaches a certain stage?

Get your philosophy out of my physics dammit.