It is likely as the following soliloquy unfolds you will come under the impression that I am either an elitist who believes himself above all other people, or else decide that I beleive myself all knowing and infallible.
In order to curtail this let me begin with a humbling and self-demeaning idea I would like to beleive is worth the speakers time in relating and the listeners time in hearing.
I know nothing.
I know nothing because knowledge is an illusion.
Before you stop reading please bear with me that I am not claiming any sort of philosophic nonsense like "the whole world is my dream" or "everyone else is a figment of my imagination". While I don't claim these things are inherently false, (indeed it is not possible to prove them false) I do personally hold that arguing them as true to another 'person' is a fruitless pursuit.
Indeed I am not claiming anything so banal or useless as Solipsism. Rather I only mean to propose that knowledge, information, or the pursuit thereof is not as concrete, meaningful or obtainable as you or I might perceive it to be.
Consider that there is some essential nature of the universe. Some set of laws or rules that govern the phenomena we observe every day. (this is where I begin to give the impression of a pompous jerk. Rest assured that I am in no way fully convinced of the truth of my own opinions, or the value of them. I mean only to share with you the uncertain understanding I have thus far pursued in the hope of receiving back some kind of stabilizing influence on the chaotic churning of ideas that spews these phantasms of thought and feeling called 'opinion' or 'idea'. <TRANSLATION: INPUT WELCOME>) If there is a set of laws that govern the universe, we cannot observe them directly. I can directly view the set of laws that govern a computer, or a mathematical function; however, I cannot observe the laws of the universe. The only means we have to peer into the black box of physics and nature is by observe the outcome of controlled events. In a well performed experiment, it is necessary to limit the number of input conditions to as few as possible. If you must discover the nature of a mathematical function by inputing numbers and observing the change in the numbers returned, you would do well to input as few values as possible. It is the nature of the universe that we cannot establish absolute control over the nature of physical processes. Furthermore, it is critical that only one input value change from one test to the next. This is patently impossible concerning the universe as it is well known that the current value of T (time) is constantly incrementing, and that furthermore T is an essential component of most if not all processes occurring in the universe.
In spite of every one of these obstacles we have, as a race, as a society, accomplished incomprehensible progress in observing the result of various events. If a given input results in a given output every the event is observes, we find it convenient to trust that this is the way it will take place every time, and put faith in the idea that this is a "law of the universe" even though the laws themselves are occult to us.
In this way, we have built an understanding of the hidden inner workings of the world through this process commonly known as 'science' in many circles science is regarded as absolute truth. The essential fallacy of this belief is taken as an acceptable risk in light of the very low likelihood that the core ideas we have come to trust will every be overthrown by new observations. It is understood by some that in the case of new observations that contradict a previously established law, extensive examination an repetition should result in a new better understanding of those hidden rules that dictate the nature of the universe as a whole.
NOW CONSIDER! At what point will we ever consider our understand of these hidden laws to be complete? How close can we come to a perfect understanding of those rules before further progress is negligible? What sign will there be that we have reached any given threshold of understanding? Never, not, and none.
Fortunately, for almost every decision regarding the situations we encounter in life, a complete and comprehensive model of the universe is not necessary. We can take those rules which have been repeatedly observed enough times to be reasonably trusted ("proven") and use them as a reference to make choices. This is the benefit of science. Unfortunately, there are a few critical decisions that absolutely require a full accurate model of the essential nature of the universe. 'Is it worthwhile to pursue understanding of whether or not there is any continued existence of an individual after the organic machine known as a mortal body has discontinued operation?' (This is very difficult or impossible to answer with science because we cannot observe the outcome in any way. Many regard the absence of observable outcome to be equivalent to 'no outcome', however it is beneficial to consider that there may be a hidden 'unobserved' outcome, and that the lack of an observed outcome is not convincing evidence that an outcome does not exist. Consider the value of pi: for some time there was no known solution, very few respected authorities claimed that this was evidence that a solution did not exist.((yes i know this is a very imperfect comparison, refer to paragraph one)) )
For those decisions that require a full comprehensive model, the only current known resource is religion. That is, a 100% unfounded arbitrary model of the nature of the universe. 'WHY??' because for some things you NEED a complete model, even if you pull it from thin air. A popular solution is to simply regard the current understanding achieved by science to be full, comprehensive and absolute. Although this is obviously not true, to those who choose this it is the only acceptable solution. To others, believing something that is incomplete by it own definition is not acceptable. These people turn to different options, sometimes choosing to use popular established complete models of the universe that are in direct and glaring contradiction to the current model held by science. Some examples: Christianity, Budism, Islam, and other 'stupid' beliefs. It is helpful to understand that many those who choose this route with a real consciouses decision and understanding of what they put their faith in are not claiming that their arbitrary complete model of the universe is useful for all decisions or as a starting point for scientific inquiry on a topic. Science and religion are separate and distinct pursuits, and those who try to blend them or build one from the other are (in my own humble and fallible opinion) chasing after a fruitless and idiotic goal that has no meaning or value. They don't mix. They aren't the same thing. KEEP YOUR SCIENCE OUT OF MY RELIGION AND KEEP MY RELIGION THE FUCK OUT OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY; IT HAS NO FUCKING PLACE IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY YOU FOOLS!! achem
Finally, there are those who either regard the full and complete model of the universe to be indiscoverable (yea, obviously) and therefore choose not to choose (i believe this is commonly referred to as agnostic) or else regard a full and complete model of the universe to be in the end of little consequence and therefore unnecessary (I think this might be a description of aetheism, but the body of people who regard themselves to be "aetheist" is even more varied and internally convoluted then those who regard themselves to be "Christian" and both groups of people (those who self-identify with the previously named groups) are overwhelmingly populated by idiots and imbeciles who honestly have no knowledge or else understanding of the code of beliefs they identify with and have no place naming themselves as a part of the group.
And so I arrive where I began. I know nothing, because ever knowing anything fully and surely is an illusion. Understanding of the universe is a slippery, shadowy thing, and certainty in any part of it is shaky at best. We get along most times with working on past observations, but never mistake that for a real understanding. Never mistake that for real knowledge. The things that you and I regard as fact are illusory phantasms in the sea of action and reaction swirling around us. I'll see you in the waves, fellow metanaut. Enjoy the ride.
Decent piece. But you could have skipped the apology in the beginning and the accusational tone near the end.
The apology isn't necessary because the piece isn't unneccesary convoluted or obscurely complicated.
The accusation isn't necessary because it detracts from the idea your trying to expound on.
But as I said, all in all a good read.