I am literally getting confused on if the words I am typing are the words you are reading, how are you reaching these conclusions?

No.

It would be what 'we' wanted it to be, all participants in this universe.
I disagree with it being unknowable even with alterable variables. A particular variable could be assigned a particular value at one point and then the collective opinion of that variable could change and that variable value altered. Like greeting someone could be worth (While pulling numbers out of my ass) 5 points and then after a wave of concern that this was being exploited by individuals just greeting everyone for the sake of it, that value could be reduced to 2 points.
It will entirely be possible to narrow the range and then predict and factor in changes.
Making considerable progress exploring effectively solo. The concept if it staying close to an 'unknowable' and 'worthless' concept after even a decade of collective effort to understand it, is absurd.

Thanks.

So the criteria would reflect the common societal (or global) values of that particular time?

Can we ignore the rest of the universe for now btw? since we don't yet know if we're the only intelligent life.

In this way, we can avoid adding a 4th assumption to the 3 already present.

What !! What again !! What are you referring to ? there are good reasons why Hume denies "truth" or "knowledge" not some sim snickering unsubtle distinction and who cares how you slither it ?

The essence is and this leads to Kant is that somewhere and many philosophers/epistemologists relate to this: the external world to which we relate or hope to gain knowledge of can only be related to our "mental picture" and not the supposed reality of the externals.

Since we can only relate or think through our "mental picture" we in effect have a proxy for external reality but not the real deal. Kant actually attempted to disprove Hume and failed.

Two points Kant came upon; one was mathematics as he saw that in mathematics the structure for his ersatz( mine, not his) truth for in its abstract rigidity we find some measure of "truth" or "knowledge".

The other was his concept of "duty" as he felt than the actions of men the concept of "duty" should stand for our noble motivations.

The effects of Hume through Kant are enormous and can be seen on our times to the effect of mathematics being primary in the science of the day for obviously the three angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees and the circle is a locus of points equidistant from a center point ,etc...

I had mentioned Pragmatism previously and in this the pragmatic mantra is "we don't know the truth but lets assume we know and act accordingly". the basis is the "skeptical" approach of Hume which is actually an epistemological statement that "mankind cannot know the truth"; he only knows his "mental picture".

Pragmatism in science says that we've not seen an atom but lets assume there are atoms and go from or theorize from there. Bohr certainly had never "seen" an atom but was affected by the Copernican picture of the heavens within a Cartesian coordinate system. Its a tough nut to manage but I stand by it.

I love mathematics and consider mathematicians the brightest and expect and hope that in the future the mathematics of quality will solve the mathematical approach within science. Phew.

Personally , I loved Hume for it seemed like he was telling the mavens that they didn't know what was going on and laughed to the grave but he was a dour fellow. His is the stuff of sophomores.

Kant is deadly and nothing but tedium, for me, being for the marathoner and I admire anyone who wades through this frigid mountain top.


All corrections of the above are appreciated and thank you.

I already have a computer catalog of my human experience to score and I seem to be able to do it my self if I so choose by way of thinking. What is my benefit for delegating this ability to a different computer?