Secondary Knowledge

What is the connection with schrodinger's cat and Wheeler's delayed choice experiment. In the first the secondary knowledge is blocked, until the box is opened to see whether the cat is alive or dead. In the second the secondary knowledge is cooked up, or forcibly confirmed.

27 May 2018
Leave aside the above statement. Primary knowledge is the detection of the evidence of an event by our senses. Light photon entering your eye. A sound phonon entering the ear. something like th e wind brushes your skin. The more important part is a photon entering your eye.
Primary knowledge is no knowledge. It will tell us nothing about the environment around us. To be knowledge others should also know what I knew. Others also should experience the same experience I had. So primary knowledge is almost useless, without supporting structure. Even in a court of law someone giving evidence of seeing something is doubted in the first instance. The doubt need to be cleared by showing that the witness is an expert witness, or pass the cross examination by the opposition lawyer. Someone saying something is not accepted in a court of law.

Real knowledge need secondary knowledge. Knowledge of an event is mostly, receipt of a photon resulting from the event. (Other events will have similar interactions). But it seems that, that is not enough. Secondary knowledge is other things that happen around the event. Evidence of a candle light  in existence is stream of photons emitted by it. Not one photon. The structure of the candle, the appearance of the flame, the shape of the flame, the colour of the flame, how long it was light. Many people could see it light. Then there should be a structure in the receiving end. It should be able to analyse the picture of the flame(this is done by our brain). If we take a photograph of it for others to see later, it need a camera. Also some sort of evidence should be provided that the photo is actually of that candle(not a photo of some other candle taken before). If a renowened scientist say he saw the candle light people will except his word. There is a similarity of evidence given by an expert witness. The court trust the witness. The world at large should trust the expert. Evidence to prove he is an expert should also be provided.

Therefore proof of an event is not primary knowledge. I feel both in schrodinger's cat and Wheeler's delayed choice experiment tries to use the primary knowledge to prove an event. Putting the cat in a box shut out all interaction with the environment of the experiment. Using one single photon to do the delayed choice experiment, only primary knowledge is used.

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?

Why world is not imaginary

Suppose there is a mountain and then there are people who sees the mountain. Each one who sees the mountain has a mental picture of the mountain in their brain. This can be represented by a set of data. Each one who sees the mountain will have a set of data. Mostly each of these data sets will be different. Further if one observer moves the set of data will change.

Then suppose that there is no mountain but only different data sets in the brains of each observer. When the observer moves the movement data is used in calculating a new data set continuously. All the data in these sets will be enormous.

Then consider the mountain is real and it's location, size and other details are given by a data set. Then also the location and movement of each observer is given by data sets. All this data will be a finite number.

When you consider the two options, imaginary mountain needs a large amount of data compared with the existence of a real mountain.

Therefore on the theory of minimizing data mountain should exist outside the imagination of the observer. Further it can be assumed that the world is real and not imaginary inside the observers brain.

Why Quantum theory instead of Classical Theory?
Using randomness uses less data than the Classical theory?
If so it will be proof why the world is Quantum.
If wave particle duality consumes less data than either waves or particles, that will be a good enough proof why duality exists.
If we can prove that if wave remains after observation need more data than becoming a particle that will be a good enough proof about the wave particle duality.

Human Brain and Quantum Theory

Lot of philosophers have said that God is the super mind. Each human being have a mind. All these minds are different. And at the same time all these minds have lot of similarities. If we create the super mind with all the good qualities of all of humans we get a super mind - this is one of the interpretation of God.

This human super mind has to be different that of a lion or any other animal. Lions vision is catered to find a pray. This shows that the makeup of a lions brain is very different of humans. The male lion kills the cubs not sired by him, then the mother of the cubs willingly cohabit with it's cub killer. This behavior is nonexistent in humans. So configuration of brains of lions and humans are very different. God of lions will be different from God of humans.

The world is perceived by our brains. When we define the qualities and attributes of the world around us, we assume that we can do a good job doing it independent of our brains. This is a mistake. It is evident from the discoveries of quantum theory and connected subjects of physics.

For instance 1+1 = 2 or A and B is true if and only if A is true and B is true, these are eternal truths according to our brain. What if we are wrong! What if these are just constructs of our brains. suppose someone has a gut feeling that 1+1 is not 2. Then we say that he is a lunatic. We have a group of people who has a gut feeling that 1+1 = 2. These are the normal people, these are the scientists and so on.

These normal people cannot comprehend how two distant particles can be entangled in such a way when qualities of one is derived the distant other half derives the opposite. When it is observed entities behave like particles and when unobserved behaves like waves.

The classical theories that can be comprehended by our brains cannot explain these pronominal.

If at some stage we can come up with a theory that could explain these effects then we can put in our basket of understanding our environment, what is happening. Sometimes it may not be possible. At the time when people considered the earth is flat not a globe they could not comprehend certain phenomena. They could not in the beginning understand that world is a globe even after someone explained it. In this way gradually people started believing earth is a globe. Now if someone say it is flat he will be considered as a lunatic

Similarly try to explain the properties of a torus to a two dimensional creature. If the torus is vertical and cut by a horizontal plane we get only two circles. Suppose the torus is horizontal the the circles will be one inside the other. If the torus is slanted the circles will not have the same center. This is what a two dimensional creature will see. In no way you will be able to explain to this two dimensional creature, what a torus is. But there is a certain tool where it can be done. It is mathematics! Using a algebraic equation of a torus, a two dimensional creature will be able to know it's properties. In this way using mathematics we have come to know most of the intricate details of our surroundings. But we can never be able to know all the details. When a new theory in physics is formed we come to know certain details. But we miss a lot.

Identifying repetitions is knowledge

Knowledge is finding repetitions in the environment. When the human brain develop from a baby to a grown man it will learn to identify religions. Even the brain is geared to deal with repetitions. More something is repeated more you remember.repetitions is a part of learning of the brain. Knowledge is something only related to a brain. It is true even for animals. Knowledge is used by animals in finding food, sex, survival of the species and other basic needs of life. Regarding humans it has gone beyond the basic needs. Lot of knowledge is utilised in hunting by lions or whales are examples. Maybe hunting is the origination of complicated knowledge. It is more complicated than just eating grass. Carnivores may have developed knowledge over the herbivores.

Each concept created by the human brain is the identification of a new repetition. Creating concepts is a continued process that is never ending, as long as human race exists. And after that artificial intelligence will take over.

If the universe is finite there will be finite number of patterns - repetitions. It will be possible to create a superior pattern from the basic pattern. Then more patterns can be created on these superior patterns. And the process can go on till you create an ultimate pattern. This pattern is ultimate knowledge, the god. W can term it as god sequence.

Finding the generalities, finding the connections is the same as searching for patterns or sequences.