If something is in principle, by definition, *unknowable*, then it seems to be in principle, by definition, *nonexistent*; is there a term for this thing?
-
-
esse est percipi. To be is to be perceived (or known).
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Partially, it is Occam's Razor principle--which is to use the simplest theory that explains all the facts. If there is no way to perceive (know) the thing, then it is simpler not to include it in our model of reality.
-
Which is a counter to impossibility of proving a negative. Do unicorns exist? Well, it seems unlikely as we have never found and documented one, but that's not the same as proving there are none in the entirety of existence.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Faith
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
You can try reading Wittgenstein and his works.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
In all of mind-space, not limited to human subsection, I'd say probably.
- Show replies
-
-
-
seems like you might be wandering in these here parts...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitch%27s_paradox_of_knowability …
-
yes this looks like it's in the right direction thank you
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Trying to google it made me realize that even philosophers didn't have much use for a term for things that can't exist in any space. I propose borrowing the buddhist term Śūnyatā
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.