Is a priori knowledge possible?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1685
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Hereandnow » January 3rd, 2018, 12:27 pm

So, Wayne92587, you are saying there is apriori knowledge, obviously. I happen to agree with this. But I was responding to SimpleGuy's assertion that apriority can be explained in probabilistic terms. I hold this is the very definition what it is for a thing not to be apriori: that is, to be apriori is not to be reducible to other terms.

Butterfly effects, space/time. What does this have to do with it, in terms that are clear? I mean, actually use the word 'apriority' as the object of your thoughts. It sounds to me like this may be a challenge, given the loose construction of the above.

Ah, but then, you could be being facetious, with the Amen, and so forth. But I won't assume as much.

Wayne92587
Posts: 1709
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Wayne92587 » January 3rd, 2018, 3:40 pm

Hereandnow;
Butterfly effects, space/time. What does this have to do with it, in terms that are clear?
The Butterfly Effect is the priori system of Chaos.

Chaos theory is a branch of mathematics and it is focused on the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions, the Reality of First Cause, being the First, a Random Singularity having no relative, numerical value, having a numerical value of Zerro-0 to be converted into a Singularity of One-1, the Reality of First Cause.

will your explain why the submitted form of my previous post invalid.
Hereand now; It sounds to me like this may be a challenge, given the loose construction of the above.
Are you saying that my grammar is not correct, if so show me where.

Your complaint about my post is not clear.

Wayne92587
Posts: 1709
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Wayne92587 » January 3rd, 2018, 3:48 pm

Hereandnow; It sounds to me like this may be a challenge, given the loose construction of the above.

Ah, but then, you could be being facetious, with the Amen, and so forth. But I won't assume as much.
Wayne wrote;

I believe in the Reality of Myth, symbols, Religion; it is all a matter of interpretation.

Amen, make it so, is meant to be the ending of a prayer, Amun Ra is an Egyptian God; Ra being the Sun God, Disk---->0.

Zero-0 is very important to my thoughts; Zero-0 being a singularity that has no relative, numerical, having a numerical value, having a numerical value of Zero-0.

Prior to the so called Big Bang nothingness was the only thing in existence, Singularity existing as an Every Present Infinite Indivisible Singularity and also as a Omniscient State of Singularity, as the Transcendental (Metaphysical) Fully Random Quantum State of Singularity.

It is this ever present Singularity of Zero-0 as a State of Singularity, Darkness upon the Deep, the omniscience of a Black Whole from which the Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, the Reality of Everything that exists as a material Reality, even a Rock, was made manifest.

Zero-0 being symbolic of the of the vessel that is the dwelling place of the seed of all living things; The Spirit of God, the Passion of God.

Passion being the animating Spirit, of God.

Singularity being the secret of the Pyramid that is hidden in Plain sight.

The Pyramid is the Arch of the covenant.

It is the dimensions of the Pyramid, the Arch of the covenant, Noha's Ark, a monolith, megalith, that is significant, all being approximately Twice as long as it is wide.

Take a rectangle, which is also defined as being a square, that is twice as long as it is wide, cut it on a bias, place the two 90 degree angles back to back and you will see why the secret of the Pyramid is hidden in Plain Sight . The Pyramids of Egypt were not built having the correct dimensions in plain sight.

Sacred Geometry, the square, the Circle and the Triangle.

A perfect square has four 90 degree and four equal sides.
A rectangle is a square but it doe not have four equal sides.
A Circle is a square, but not a perfect square because a Circle does not have any corners; a corner being defined as being a 90 decree angle..

Wayne92587
Posts: 1709
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Wayne92587 » January 4th, 2018, 2:45 am

The Holy Grail, a cup that holds the Blood of the Christ, a Platter---->0.

When God breathed his breath, his Immoral Spirit into Mankind's nostrils it was the Spirit, the Passion, the Breath of Life, it was the Spirit of God that became, was made manifest, that became a living Soul, alive in the Flesh Body of Man.

How man symbols are there that exist as a Square that has no corners.

All the crosses from the Maltese Cross to Swastika, the Star of David, the octagon, the pentagram. ,

Take eight Mirrors 8" square, form an Octagon with the reflective side to the inside, place a mark on one of the mirrors, observe the mark from outside the perimeter from just the right angle and an infinite, an untold of quantity of marks will appear in a single Mirror, replicating what appears to be what appears to be an Infinite number, quantity, of infinitely Finite indivisible singularities in one of the Eight Mirrors.

Your will see a physical example of Infinity, even though the Infinite, unspoken of number, quantity, of marks are nothing more that a reflection, are an Illusion of Reality.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1685
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Hereandnow » January 4th, 2018, 10:31 am

Hi Wayne92587. I wonder, could finish this sentence for me: Apriority is possible because_________________....

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Namelesss » January 5th, 2018, 10:50 pm

I would suggest that (almost?) all metaphysical, ultimate, Reality/Truth is Known a priori.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1685
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Hereandnow » January 5th, 2018, 11:54 pm

Ok Nameless. Please keep in mind that the matter is about apriority, and this should be front and center.

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Namelesss » January 6th, 2018, 1:30 am

Hereandnow wrote:
January 5th, 2018, 11:54 pm
Ok Nameless. Please keep in mind that the matter is about apriority, and this should be front and center.
How can you have read and understood my post and still say this?
So... that is not the subject of my post?

a pri·o·ri
ˌā prīˈôrī/
adjective
adjective: a priori; adjective: apriori

1. relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge that proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience.

*********

Apriority
Collins English Dictionary
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/di ... /apriority

apriority in American. (ˌeɪpraɪˈɔrəti ; āˌprīôrˈətē) the quality or fact of being a priori. the use of a priori reasoning.

So how am I not on topic?

Namelesss
Posts: 499
Joined: November 15th, 2017, 1:59 am

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Namelesss » January 6th, 2018, 1:33 am

My post was in response to your;
"Apriority is possible because_________________...."
I showed an example of a priori Knowledge as evidence of 'possibility'.
Very on topic.
Somehow, you managed to ignore the message and... I don't know what, move the goalposts?

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1685
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Hereandnow » January 6th, 2018, 11:29 am

Nameless:
I would suggest that (almost?) all metaphysical, ultimate, Reality/Truth is Known a priori..
I don't know what ultimate reality is. How is "it" known??

Wayne92587
Posts: 1709
Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Wayne92587 » January 6th, 2018, 9:18 pm

Hi Wayne92587. I wonder, could finish this sentence for me: Apriority is possible because_________
The Heavens and the Earth, the Universe, "Everything" that exists in the material sense of the word, even rock, is born of an Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity that has no mass, that has no relative, numerical value, that has a numerical value of Zero-0, Nada, Zip, Zilch, Nothing.

This primary substance, Apriority, if you like, is motionless, has no angular momentum, no velocity of speed and direction, is meaningless, can not be experienced, is immeasurable as to location and momentum in Space Time, is Infinite.

Apriority is the Ultimate Reality, the basic Substance of which the Whole of Reality is made manifest; existing as the minutest Singular Particle, substance, in the Universe.

In quantity, a number, which can not be spoken of, this omnipresent Singularity exists as Transcendental Metaphysical Fully Random Quantum State of Singularity in which nothing is Relative, has numerical value.

Time, Space and Motion exist as undifferentiated Singularities, Motion in Time and Space being meaningless, not being measurable existing without displacement, without Velocity of Speed and direction, Time, Space and Motion being at a Standstill.

Motion existing as an insignificant innate inner vibration, oscillation, within a Singularity, causing the Infinitely Finite Indivisible Singularity existing as an omnipresent Singularity within the Omniscience of the Transcendental Fully Random Quantum State of Singularity; to make a Humming Sound; OHM !

Ultimate Reality, Apriorty, Singularity, often mistakenly Spoken of as being God!

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 295
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by SimpleGuy » January 7th, 2018, 4:50 am

Perhaps, we should reforulate the question!

Is is indistinguishable to have a priori knowledge from beeing informed by somebody other ?
As one sees , this is mostly just for your own positioning and feeling the case. Everybody
else cannot judge about the aprioryness of your knowlege .

As this cannot be replicated, what would be the effect if the apriory knowledge as intuition
would be distinguishable from beeing informed from somebody else?

Can you imagine a , case where the same person was just informed by somebody and the
person with the same intuition could be as a case have different effects, although the
informational content would be the same ?

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 295
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by SimpleGuy » January 7th, 2018, 4:52 am

Sorry Correction: Somebody else not somebody other , this was german grammar.

User avatar
SimpleGuy
Posts: 295
Joined: September 11th, 2017, 12:28 pm

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by SimpleGuy » January 7th, 2018, 10:24 am

The how do you want to formulate the problem, from the participants point or from the society outside.

There are two events:

a) A person tells via intuition, how a problem can be solved or a situation can be seen.

b) A person gets the solution of a problem or the viewpoint explained by somebody else, and then simply tells the consequences to other people.

I claim:
For the outsider, who doesn't know the person and has no contact to the person, the two situations are indistinguishable.
For the insider true intuition, and a priory knowledge does exist.

The mathematical formulation of the problem simply imposes this as if situation b is existent such that the person with a priory knowlede is formulated a change of a sigma algebra. But the problem is, if you claim that situation a is the case, it's simply not reproducible for a scientist as well as a philosopher.

One has then to formalize the whole world , just through the viewpoints of a few persons in contact with the person with a priory knowledge.
Which is some kind of irrational effort to explain the world.

In fact a neural computational way to explain these effect, simply comes out as mathematical equivalent to the previously described mathematical situation. But no person for himself, would see his thoughts as generated by some neurons of himself, but would take himself a whole entity.

As you can see, the problem is a problem of relativity of standpoints more than of the existence.

User avatar
Hereandnow
Posts: 1685
Joined: July 11th, 2012, 9:16 pm
Favorite Philosopher: the moon and the stars

Re: Is a priori knowledge possible?

Post by Hereandnow » January 7th, 2018, 11:32 am

SimpleGuy:
Is is indistinguishable to have a priori knowledge from beeing informed by somebody other ?
As one sees , this is mostly just for your own positioning and feeling the case. Everybody
else cannot judge about the aprioryness of your knowlege .

As this cannot be replicated, what would be the effect if the apriory knowledge as intuition
would be distinguishable from beeing informed from somebody else?

Can you imagine a , case where the same person was just informed by somebody and the
person with the same intuition could be as a case have different effects, although the
informational content would be the same ?
Apriority refers to propositions that are necessarily and universally true. Of course, it can be used to refer to more mundane matters in which case you know something is the case without having experienced its content: you know something about it prior to content, as in "so you knew apriori that the defendant was dangerous" meaning prior to the murder occurring; of the like. But this is not what is at issue here. What is at issue is the rationalist's claim against the empiricist that there is knowledge that is not derived from experience, as in analytical propositions like " all bachelors are unmarried" (trivially true tautology; not very interesting) and "every event has a cause" or the propositions that issue from logic and math. Issues center around all of these, of course.

Being informed by someone else, and I presume you mean thereby giving you knowledge about something you have not yourself witnessed, and you thus know it without experienced it, would be an example of the loose and casual sense of apriority, not the rigorous philosophical idea.

Things that are necessarily true, in geometrical truths like "the leg of a triangle that is opposite the largest angle is the longest" are true regardless who has the thought. Why this so is exactly the mystery.

Post Reply