The Nature of Knowledge

By Edwin E. Ott

All knowledge is illusion! By this statement I am not meaning put down knowledge nor promote magic, but I do believe it is important to acknowledge the limitations of our knowledge base. If we do not remember our fundamental premises, we may astound ourselves with pronouncements which do nothing more than restate these premises. Let me explain what I mean by knowledge being illusion and how I arrive at this conclusion.

I accept as axiomatic the existence of “reality,” that is, the essence of the universe, reality, exists independently of the existence of sentient observers. I believe this is the common operating axiom of most people, and as such, may seem to be trivial. However, this is not the only viable premise of the nature of the universe.

Probably the first operating premise we learn is that what is perceived is “real.” Seeing is believing. This axiom has a long history in human thought. For example, the “Doubting Thomas” story in the Bible is an application of this premise. Although the advent of modern technology has “shown” us that many perceptions may not be “real,” this premise still has a strong hold in modern society. For example, a corollary to this premise is touted more and more frequently today –it’s not what you do that counts, but what people think you do. This “perception is all important” philosophy may be well suited to sales, but I hope the mechanics servicing the next airliner I ride do not subscribe to this premise. “Virtual reality” can help us understand information, but “virtual maintenance” would be a disaster.

In most of science, the perception premise has been replaced or severely modified. Most scientists seek to describe reality by using perceived observations to develop generalized concepts. Initially, our perceptions were limited to our natural senses: sight, hearing, and touch. Today we have many more means of perception, such as CAT scans, MRI, radio telescopes, voter polls, etc. With the growth of our conceptual knowledge, we developed the premise of the existence of “truth” and “reality” which can be known by sifting and analyzing “observations” (perceived information).

In physics, the premise of reality existing independently of sentient observers, is known as “classical” theory. Most of the perceived knowledge near the end of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th Century was closely related to our natural senses. According to science historians, physicists were so pleased with themselves at this time they declared there was nothing more to learn. Of course, today we know this was arrogant boasting. (Presuming that mass media worked then much like it does now, I would surmise that much of this boasting was media hype. I seriously doubt that many scientists at that time would be so limited in their horizons to believe that all the basic laws of the universe were known.)