On Nov 3, 2:38 pm, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> 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 -
