119
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Sep 2023
119 points (93.4% liked)
Asklemmy
43974 readers
642 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
I wouldn't say "complete" can even be sufficiently defined in this case. Every functional definition I can think of has a limiting factor.
Let's try to define knowledge. What kind of information qualifies? We can usually think of important, useful info like physics and medicine. But what about other data, like sports game stats, atmospheric sensor readings, or even something more esoteric, like the location data of every object on earth.
And even if we could have the information of every single thing at any particular time, what about when things change in the next second? And the one afterwards?
Essentially, nothing will ever be "complete". Thanks for listening to my rant on semantics.
That was a lovely rant on semantics. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it!