What is a delusion?
It’s when one’s perception of reality isn’t compatible with the general concept of truth.
Here we face two problems:
if we can say that the general rule is ‘you walk into a wall you will hit the wall’.
Then you’d say that if that wall was really an optical illusion for example, there’d be honest ignorance.
Okay, so by this example, you are assuming the existence of *something*/a thing that is the truth --> cannot walk through walls, unless....
[and you give your two case scenarios]
But let’s take the concept of delusion to the field of research. Our instruments and technologies allow us to observe more and more accurately on the human, macro and nano+quantum scales.
So when the delusional man and the ignorant man meet this new situation, what are the grounds for calling one interpretation a delusional one and another honest poke in the dark made by the ignorant man?
We need to infer the mechanisms ruling the new grounds of reality we uncover and I don’t see how we can ‘honestly’ call the first a delusional man and the second an honest ignorant.
But, according to your above examples, you've pointed out that delusion is, yes, a discord from *something* that has been established as the truth. I.e., some-thing had to exist as a knowledge. I'd think that's the essential difference between delusion and ignorance. Once is a reactive commentary on a pre-existing something, other is a commentary based on a lack of something.
A man who wants to infer about certain phenomena in this universe, and applies the accelaration of gravity to be 2.34m/s^2, while his fellow colleagues are shouting 9.8m/s^2, versus, a man, who exists in a world where we don't know of 9.8m/s^2. Difference.
Therefore delusions seem to mostly apply to human scale and social interactions and are designed rather by norms than the purest empiricism. Now yes, if everybody could have absolute undeniable certainty of a perfect understanding the whole of the universe, then you'd be able to perfectly weed out delusions from a no longer existing state of honest ignorance.
This is an epistemological argument. What is true knowledge about knowlege? Beyond philosophy, we in our everyday world, and even within science, still go forth and accept some things, as *something*. We accept certain things as knowledge. Or approaching the limit of the infinite knowledge. So, it doesn't necessary need to be a sub-set of the whole, if our conceivability limits us such that knowledge is truly infinite, and we can't even conceive a whole. So, we do a bottom-up processing than a top-down. We start with parts, and build on it, and the next part that fits will have to be justified within the framework on which it is set.
That is how we test whether we are 'wrong/going down the 'wrong' path/or merely ignorant to certain other mutually depending phenomena. We change our path accordingly.
However, if, in the face of all the above justification/discord of pattern, we still insist that our 'knowledge' fits (i.e., is still right)...that then I'd classify as delusion. Unless, one can justify why.
I’d have to disagree. If the ‘human truth’ is part of the whole and is therefore subject to corrections.
Those corrections are a part of a process, which process can be indefinitely divided and understood as a potentially infinite series going towards 1.
And 1 is 1 as a whole, the absolute truth is the universe, multiverse, or whatever is the last step. In other words, what we are talking about is simply Reality.
This Reality is a self contained system and not a process.
I can challenge you on why the knowlege of the universe = universe. Can knowledge supercede the thing on which the knowledge is based? Is knowlege always approaching the whole/thing?
Knowing about the apple allows us to know about leaves. Water. Rainfall. Sky. Each connects to the other. Becomes an infinite web-like structure, minus any real nucleus/center. That, to me, is knowledge. Thus, knowledge cannot approach an absolute truth of the whole/1. It is not linear. It is not compartmentalized into clean sub-sets. It is not approaching anything. You must justify why you believe the properties of knowledge to be what you say it is.
Well, It’s because this sphere isn’t self contained, it constantly adds new knowledge within its midst If the universe at any given time could be reduced to an X, and then at another time into an Y.
X would be equal to Y.
But the sum of the human knowledge constantly adding to itself would result into an X at T0 < Y at T1.
If the universe at any given time (as conceived by us/our knowledge) = X or Y, you mean?
If so, X /=/ Y. I don't understand the premise of your argument above. What is X or Y?
- The universe at a given time?
- Or, our understanding of the universe at a given time?
If it's the former, X = Y, regardless of how much we have gained in the sum total of human knowledge or not. Human knowledge will not affect the existence of the universe. Human knowledge therefore is redundant.
If it is the latter, then X /=/Y, hence, I can't follow your premise.
PS - Sum total of human knowledge. Interesting concept. I don't think I adhere to it though. I don't think knowledge can be as cleanly given to a linear relationship as you suppose.