Not knowing, is not the same as being wrong. Evolution is falsifiable. But, those against the theory often bring up 'holes' that we haven't yet explained through evolution, and call it contradiction. Like the evolution of how the mind processes images (how the eye works). But, not knowing doesn't contradict evolution. We're not wrong. We just don't know. (yet)
Yes I'm sorry, I mis used the word wrong thinking about an inexact model of a reality. In my mind 'right' was the absolute reality. You're right to note that point. thx
Again, ignorance is not delusion. They're not the same. One is a lack of knowledge, the other a twisting of knowledge.
As such, honesty can lie in ignorance. But, not in delusion.
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.
While the delusional individual would for example, start with the belief he can go through the wall, GO through the wall and think it makes him right.
Now we can say, yes, but you’d just have to give the delusional individual the way more probable experience of hitting the wall to discredit his belief.
So the delusional individual really thinks he has a super power, but then he can never go through the wall. He’d keep swearing he did it but would keep being proven wrong.
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.
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.
The asolute truth. The whole. If we say that it can be broken down into infinite smaller pieces such that unless we *are* the truth, we cannot truly ever know the truth. Then, wouldn't the same logic stand that when we build *on* a truth, as it is THE absolute whole, it means that there can be infinite inter-connections, so, the unknown may very well be a realistic failure to conceive of all infinite connections that makes up the whole? Rather than merely the concrete unknown.
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.
If time can be considered as a dimension within this multi\universe there’s no point at stating it’s a dynamical process.
Now the counter attack would be: but then how is the ‘expansion of the human sphere of knowledge not also reduceable to a dimensional construct.
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.