Knowledge and observer consensus

On certainty by Wittgenstein, a similar idea is put forward. When everyone accepts a certain fact as true, it it's true. By logic you can't prove that a fact is true. Because there will be train of facts. One is true because some other fact is true, that fact this fact is true because even another fact is true. So there is no end(some say God is the end-but that is not logic). For instance how do you know that 2+2=4? We can't prove it, by experience know it. We are taught it is correct, when we are small. In Wittgenstein's words we have never made a mistake, 2+2=4 was always correct never wrong. So we know that it is correct.

TIME is the same. It is artificial, man made, when everyone comes to a conscientious, we all accept the flow of time.

This is very similar to the conscientious of crypto miners regarding accepting transactions to be inserted in the blockchain. They will reject transactions that are not in conformity with standards created by the crypto community. This is very similar to a scientist reading some new idea in the internet, if the idea is mostly in conformity with the accepted norms he will accept the idea provisionally, and read more on the matter to check what other scientists think about it. Only after coming to a conscientious, he will accept the idea. It is important to understand that everyone is not going to build a practical accelerator, to verify the results printed in experiments done in one practical accelerator. May be several other practical accelerators will check and publish the results. People at large will accept the results.

09.07.2018
Philosophical investigations: interesting remark: suppose a man from childhood lives in a cave without no interactions of any other human being from birth, hunts and sleep in the cave. Say to hunt he need to get up at dawn or he has to be hungry that day. One day he gets up late and cannot hunt. What will be the mental status of him. Does he ponder about his failure of getting up late and determine to get up early next day? Or he won't think anything just go hungry and sleep a bit more. Without language he can't think! The animals will just do that.

Beleaf and Knowledge

Ludwig Wittgenstein On certinity. Questions the difference between belief and knowledge. He also bring in the phrase"what it's it like to make a mistake".

My belief on this matter:
Knowledge is when certainty it's 100%. When certainty is more than 50% it is belief. Religion is a good example, we believe that our religion is right, but we also know that there are a lot of other people who believe their religion(other religions) is right.
2x2=4 this is universal, everyone thinks it's right. We also knows that everyone thinks it's right. We say only a man out of his mind thinks it is wrong. In other words if someone mistakes and say it is wrong, we may say he it's a lunatic. Or his brain acts wrongly.
So knowledge is all propositions that everyone indisputably believe to be correct. Belief is when we think it is right, but when we know that some people thinks it is wrong.

A good example came up trying to teach maths to a dyslexic child. When I tied to teach to solve the problem, "ten apples are $100, how much is one apple?", we know to get the answer we need to divide 100 by 10. But the dyslexic son handles this in a different way. He knows it has to be either division or multiplication. Then he chose one at random, and get the answer. If a usual person who do not know how to get the result may also do it like that, but he knows it it's a mistake. But my son thinks he is right and there is no mistake, and that it it's the correct way to get the answer. Because of this he is having a learning disability, it is very difficult to teach him. He is not acquiring knowledge. Belief is irrelevant in this case, but mistake is relevant.

Take the example of 2x2=4, human brain will have lot of links about this equation. For instance there are two small boxes each having two marbles, then you pass the contents of two boxes to a bigger box, we should have four marbles. We have experience that all such experiments gives same result-4. Then our favorite maths teacher in the kindergarten taught us that it is true. There are no contradictions regarding this. Time and again this was proved correct. Then we go for a magic show, the magician performs the trick and we find 5 marbles as the result. A mistake-but still we believe 2x2=4 is correct. We know that it's a magic show, after all it's a magic show what's the use of a magic show if it shows that 2x2=4. Suppose a very trusted friend says he has experienced many times that 2x2=5, we will think he is mistaken. But suppose in a news bulletin BBC reports that a prestigious scientific lab in performing an experiment accidentally found an instance where 2x2=5. Then we will start doubting our knowledge in multiplication.

I see a link between law and knowledge. The constitution is the apex of the system. All laws flows from it.but there is no hard and fast rule in making a constitution. Constitutions of different countries differ. Some countries don't have a constitution, laws of Islamic countries are very different from other countries.
Same analogy can be drawn on different cultures of the world.
Then art and music also like that. But there is golden ratio in art, and scales in music.

Moore says "this is my hand" the knowledge of it is given as it's proof. Wittgenstein say No. What kind of proof is sufficient give example?