Andreas Laurencius's Blog - Posts Tagged "knowledge"
Crisis in the foundation of knowledge: The epistemology of yellow
September 13, 2019
On 18 October 2013, spectators in the Rhein-Neckar-Arena soccer stadium were dispirited after Stefan Kiessling's header sent the ball into the back of the net, giving Kiessling's team, Bayer Leverkusen, a two-goal lead against the home team TSG 1899 Hoffenheim. But right after Kiessling headed the ball, he held his head with his hands in disappointment and appeared to be confused when his teammates congratulated him. What happened? Here's the video of the goal: https://youtu.be/vQZmRqxnH6M
Kiessling knew he missed the target but somehow the ball found its way into the back of the net. He headed the ball toward the side netting and the ball went through the hole on the side netting. But the referee didn't see this, so when the players (including Kiessling) protested his decision to award the goal, the referee had to use statistics to determine whether or not it was actually a goal: he had to (rationally) acknowledge that the probability of the ball going in through the hole on the side netting is way, way smaller compared to the probability of the ball actually passing over the goal line between the goal posts, below the crossbar (being a real goal). So, based on statistics, the right decision is to award the goal. But based on the truth, the right decision is to NOT award the goal. Statistics turned out not to be the truth, because there was only one truth that happened, and it wasn't a goal.
Is our knowledge right? Or is it just statistics?
In 1665, Sir Isaac Newton discovered the visible light spectrum by showing that a prism refracts visible light and disassembles it into its component colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet. In 1802, Thomas Young, another English scientist, calculated the approximate wavelengths of the seven colors that Newton discovered. Now, what is the relationship between wavelengths and color? Even though a light with a certain wavelength will translate to a certain color (deterministic, that is), we have no idea what causes that certain wavelength to induce the perception of that certain color. We can shine that particular light (that has a particular wavelength) to a robot and the robot will not perceive that light as that color even though the relationship between that wavelength and that color is deterministic.
If we didn't know what color the light with wavelength of 580 nm translated to, how did we know what color it translated to? Was it by studying the mechanism how that wavelength causes that color? No. We can not know how that wavelength causes that particular color. The perception of color is considered an emergent property of our neural network. We can't know the complete (set of) cause(s). What we can do is taking a statistical data: studies showed that this particular wavelength translates to that color, so we can conclude that whenever this wavelength occurs, that color will occur.
In physics, color is not a property of the visible light itself. The perception of color itself needs a whole analysis due to its being considered an emergent phenomenon in neuroanatomy. The known relationship between wavelengths and colors is merely statistical.
These statistics-based deductions are everywhere.
In particle physics, we don't know the reasoning behind the fine-structure constant, the strong coupling constant, the Born rule, the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, quantum tunneling, etc; we merely observe the statistical proof of their existence. In Newtonian mechanics, we don't know the reason behind the gravitational constant: its value is experimentally-determined (statistical relationship between the force of gravity, the masses of the objects, and the distance between these objects yields the gravitational constant G), but we don't know where G comes from. In chemistry, we don't know the reason behind the conservation of mass and the second law of thermodynamics. In biology, we don't know why plants keep utilizing CO2 for photosynthesis and not something else. In cosmology, we don't know the story behind the cosmological constant. In systems science, we don't know what causes quantum mechanics to give rise to classical mechanics, what causes inorganic substance to give rise to cells, what causes cells to give rise to consciousness, what causes consciousness to give rise to systems ecology. The deterministic relationships are observed but not well-understood: the causative characteristics are statistically reproducible but the right mechanisms behind them are not known.
The same phenomenon occurs in neuroscience. How do we know that brain activity A means action A? It is not by understanding how brain activity A causes action A, but by taking statistical data that when brain activity A occurs, action A occurs. This enables us to build a database that can be used to read mind (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-... , http://naplab.ee.columbia.edu/reconst... , https://medium.com/@ermanmisirlisoy/t...), help patients with motoric disabilities (https://youtu.be/sk1NkWl_W2Y), and help patients with sensory impairment (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...).
The same thing also occurs in computer science. If we know the prime numbers (A and B) that are the factors of a large number (C), we can easily check whether A.B = C, but if we don't know what A and B are, it will take a long time to factorize C. RSA cryptosystem, one of the security system that guards our online accounts, is based on this "factoring problem". If we know the causes (the A and B), it will be easy to calculate the outcome, but if we can only know the outcome (the C), which is always the case in our knowledge, it takes a very long time to know the A and B. However, because science had been our most successful tool in understanding everything, I have good faith that we will be able to figure out the A and B.
Was the referee's decision based on statistics? Yes. Was this decision right? No. We can know that the decision was not right because we have a technology called video recording that enabled us to examine closely what the mechanism behind the "goal" was (what the causes of the "goal" were). Nowadays, we have a technology called VAR (Video Assistant Referee) that will enable the referee to see what really happens behind the "goal", a technology that will make our decision not based on statistics anymore, but based on truth.
Now, let's change "decision" to "knowledge".
Is our knowledge based on statistics? Yes. Was this knowledge right? No one knows. We can't know whether this knowledge was right or not right because we don't have a technology that enables us to examine closely what the mechanism behind the "knowledge" was (what the causes of the "knowledge" were). Nowadays, we don't have a technology that will enable us to see what really happens behind the "knowledge", a technology that will make our knowledge not based on statistics anymore, but based on truth.
We have observed that even a decision that had been based on all available data could be not right. Furthermore, I'd like to point out the discrepancies between a decision that is rational and a decision that is social, where a decision that is rational is made by using data and a decision that is social is made based on what a group or a species wants. We, as social beings, have long claim that our group/religion/truth/nation is right and claim that other groups/religions/truths/nations are wrong. In my paper "Resolving epistemological crisis by identifying emergence and causality: A scientific progress", I showed that right and wrong is nonexistent by showing that everything that exists is not wrong and is not right because everything that exists is the result of the thing(s) that happened before it and everything that exists can’t be right because no existing theory can formulate the future. I have even elaborated on the role of evidence in uncovering the true past that, given enough time, everything that is deterministic can be replicated or altered, that in an attempt to uncover the right past, all present evidence can be shown to be inconclusive. A judge in a courtroom has to be rational, the judge has to collect all available data, and I have shown that even all available data is not enough to convict someone. What makes you think that you, as social beings, can persecute someone?
So, again, was our knowledge right? No one knows. We can't know whether this knowledge was right or not right because we don't have a technology that enables us to examine closely what the mechanism behind the "knowledge" was (what the causes of the "knowledge" were). The title of the article is "crisis in the foundation of knowledge" and not "crisis in knowledge". Does the foundation of knowledge actually disprove the rightness of our knowledge just like the video recording disproves the goal? Probably. I have pointed out in my paper that "everything that exists can’t be right because no existing theory can formulate the future", so it is probable that the foundation of knowledge actually disproves the rightness of our knowledge. However, I have also pointed out that it is not acceptable to determine what is right by looking to the future, so it is not acceptable to say that "the foundation of knowledge actually disproves the rightness of our knowledge because no existing theory can formulate the future."
If the referee had had the VAR (Video Assistant Referee) technology, he would have been able to know the right knowledge, he wouldn't have made the erroneous judgment, and the match could have ended in a draw. But because of the 2-1 win, Bayer Leverkusen moved to the top of the Bundesliga table.
On 18 October 2013, spectators in the Rhein-Neckar-Arena soccer stadium were dispirited after Stefan Kiessling's header sent the ball into the back of the net, giving Kiessling's team, Bayer Leverkusen, a two-goal lead against the home team TSG 1899 Hoffenheim. But right after Kiessling headed the ball, he held his head with his hands in disappointment and appeared to be confused when his teammates congratulated him. What happened? Here's the video of the goal: https://youtu.be/vQZmRqxnH6M
Kiessling knew he missed the target but somehow the ball found its way into the back of the net. He headed the ball toward the side netting and the ball went through the hole on the side netting. But the referee didn't see this, so when the players (including Kiessling) protested his decision to award the goal, the referee had to use statistics to determine whether or not it was actually a goal: he had to (rationally) acknowledge that the probability of the ball going in through the hole on the side netting is way, way smaller compared to the probability of the ball actually passing over the goal line between the goal posts, below the crossbar (being a real goal). So, based on statistics, the right decision is to award the goal. But based on the truth, the right decision is to NOT award the goal. Statistics turned out not to be the truth, because there was only one truth that happened, and it wasn't a goal.
Is our knowledge right? Or is it just statistics?
In 1665, Sir Isaac Newton discovered the visible light spectrum by showing that a prism refracts visible light and disassembles it into its component colors: red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet. In 1802, Thomas Young, another English scientist, calculated the approximate wavelengths of the seven colors that Newton discovered. Now, what is the relationship between wavelengths and color? Even though a light with a certain wavelength will translate to a certain color (deterministic, that is), we have no idea what causes that certain wavelength to induce the perception of that certain color. We can shine that particular light (that has a particular wavelength) to a robot and the robot will not perceive that light as that color even though the relationship between that wavelength and that color is deterministic.
If we didn't know what color the light with wavelength of 580 nm translated to, how did we know what color it translated to? Was it by studying the mechanism how that wavelength causes that color? No. We can not know how that wavelength causes that particular color. The perception of color is considered an emergent property of our neural network. We can't know the complete (set of) cause(s). What we can do is taking a statistical data: studies showed that this particular wavelength translates to that color, so we can conclude that whenever this wavelength occurs, that color will occur.
In physics, color is not a property of the visible light itself. The perception of color itself needs a whole analysis due to its being considered an emergent phenomenon in neuroanatomy. The known relationship between wavelengths and colors is merely statistical.
These statistics-based deductions are everywhere.
In particle physics, we don't know the reasoning behind the fine-structure constant, the strong coupling constant, the Born rule, the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, quantum tunneling, etc; we merely observe the statistical proof of their existence. In Newtonian mechanics, we don't know the reason behind the gravitational constant: its value is experimentally-determined (statistical relationship between the force of gravity, the masses of the objects, and the distance between these objects yields the gravitational constant G), but we don't know where G comes from. In chemistry, we don't know the reason behind the conservation of mass and the second law of thermodynamics. In biology, we don't know why plants keep utilizing CO2 for photosynthesis and not something else. In cosmology, we don't know the story behind the cosmological constant. In systems science, we don't know what causes quantum mechanics to give rise to classical mechanics, what causes inorganic substance to give rise to cells, what causes cells to give rise to consciousness, what causes consciousness to give rise to systems ecology. The deterministic relationships are observed but not well-understood: the causative characteristics are statistically reproducible but the right mechanisms behind them are not known.
The same phenomenon occurs in neuroscience. How do we know that brain activity A means action A? It is not by understanding how brain activity A causes action A, but by taking statistical data that when brain activity A occurs, action A occurs. This enables us to build a database that can be used to read mind (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-... , http://naplab.ee.columbia.edu/reconst... , https://medium.com/@ermanmisirlisoy/t...), help patients with motoric disabilities (https://youtu.be/sk1NkWl_W2Y), and help patients with sensory impairment (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...).
The same thing also occurs in computer science. If we know the prime numbers (A and B) that are the factors of a large number (C), we can easily check whether A.B = C, but if we don't know what A and B are, it will take a long time to factorize C. RSA cryptosystem, one of the security system that guards our online accounts, is based on this "factoring problem". If we know the causes (the A and B), it will be easy to calculate the outcome, but if we can only know the outcome (the C), which is always the case in our knowledge, it takes a very long time to know the A and B. However, because science had been our most successful tool in understanding everything, I have good faith that we will be able to figure out the A and B.
Was the referee's decision based on statistics? Yes. Was this decision right? No. We can know that the decision was not right because we have a technology called video recording that enabled us to examine closely what the mechanism behind the "goal" was (what the causes of the "goal" were). Nowadays, we have a technology called VAR (Video Assistant Referee) that will enable the referee to see what really happens behind the "goal", a technology that will make our decision not based on statistics anymore, but based on truth.
Now, let's change "decision" to "knowledge".
Is our knowledge based on statistics? Yes. Was this knowledge right? No one knows. We can't know whether this knowledge was right or not right because we don't have a technology that enables us to examine closely what the mechanism behind the "knowledge" was (what the causes of the "knowledge" were). Nowadays, we don't have a technology that will enable us to see what really happens behind the "knowledge", a technology that will make our knowledge not based on statistics anymore, but based on truth.
We have observed that even a decision that had been based on all available data could be not right. Furthermore, I'd like to point out the discrepancies between a decision that is rational and a decision that is social, where a decision that is rational is made by using data and a decision that is social is made based on what a group or a species wants. We, as social beings, have long claim that our group/religion/truth/nation is right and claim that other groups/religions/truths/nations are wrong. In my paper "Resolving epistemological crisis by identifying emergence and causality: A scientific progress", I showed that right and wrong is nonexistent by showing that everything that exists is not wrong and is not right because everything that exists is the result of the thing(s) that happened before it and everything that exists can’t be right because no existing theory can formulate the future. I have even elaborated on the role of evidence in uncovering the true past that, given enough time, everything that is deterministic can be replicated or altered, that in an attempt to uncover the right past, all present evidence can be shown to be inconclusive. A judge in a courtroom has to be rational, the judge has to collect all available data, and I have shown that even all available data is not enough to convict someone. What makes you think that you, as social beings, can persecute someone?
So, again, was our knowledge right? No one knows. We can't know whether this knowledge was right or not right because we don't have a technology that enables us to examine closely what the mechanism behind the "knowledge" was (what the causes of the "knowledge" were). The title of the article is "crisis in the foundation of knowledge" and not "crisis in knowledge". Does the foundation of knowledge actually disprove the rightness of our knowledge just like the video recording disproves the goal? Probably. I have pointed out in my paper that "everything that exists can’t be right because no existing theory can formulate the future", so it is probable that the foundation of knowledge actually disproves the rightness of our knowledge. However, I have also pointed out that it is not acceptable to determine what is right by looking to the future, so it is not acceptable to say that "the foundation of knowledge actually disproves the rightness of our knowledge because no existing theory can formulate the future."
If the referee had had the VAR (Video Assistant Referee) technology, he would have been able to know the right knowledge, he wouldn't have made the erroneous judgment, and the match could have ended in a draw. But because of the 2-1 win, Bayer Leverkusen moved to the top of the Bundesliga table.
