There is no limit to knowledge.

[questfortruth]

Hello. There is no limit to knowledge. Why? The all-knowing Being cannot tell that there is no All-knowing Being. Hence, there is such a Being. Part of his knowledge is the answer to the Riemann Hypothesis, which I am asking you to check, please. I know that I know at least something.

Riemann Hypothesis. A clear proof.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The all-knowing Being cannot tell that there is no All-knowing Being. Hence, there is such a Being.

I wince at your hence.

 

[blü 2]

Hello. There is no limit to knowledge. Why? The all-knowing Being cannot tell that there is no All-knowing Being. Hence, there is such a Being.

First, your premise assumes your conclusion. You merely assert the existence of an "All-knowing being", then attribute a quality to it, then conclude that therefore there is a real All-knowing being.

Using that form of argument we get, "The unicorn cannot tell that there is no unicorn, therefore there is at least one real unicorn."

And "The Foob cannot tell that there is no foob, therefore there is at a real Foob."


Second, how does your all-knowing being know there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know? Without an answer to that, in my view there is no basis for asserting allknowingness.

 

[Pogo]

Hello. There is no limit to knowledge. Why? The all-knowing Being cannot tell that there is no All-knowing Being. Hence, there is such a Being. Part of his knowledge is the answer to the Riemann Hypothesis, which I am asking you to check, please. I know that I know at least something.

Riemann Hypothesis. A clear proof.

You mean the all knowing being doesn't know if there is or is not an all-knowing being. Hence, the all-knowing being is not all-knowing.

 

[paarsurrey]

There is no limit to knowledge.

Well, is there a limit to ignorance, please, right??

Regards

 

[Balthazzar]

I don't understand this line of reasoning, nor understand the benefit - if any. If there is an all knowing being, then perhaps this all knowing contains all things within itself, yet wouldn't a paradox present itself? Empty space - that area that enables growth and expansion would need to be known also. The question is what can be known about the empty space, aside from it being a substrate for development? It could be about density and inner development as opposed to outer, eh?