Justified Knowledge Certainty and Truth Value
A challenge to the “LessWrong” platform and specifically to author Eliezer Yudkowsky
The thesis of this Substack post is that knowledge with certainty is possible. Knowledge with certainty is justified knowledge. There is a method to arrive at justified knowledge.
If justified knowledge, e.g., knowing for sure, were impossible, then nihilism would rule, logical contradiction would rule, infinite regress would rule. Furthermore, if that were the case, e.g., actually real, then there could be no foundation for human civilization, no personal happiness, no hope for humans to live in harmony with each other and with nature.
Nevertheless, even the smartest among us keep repeating that knowledge with certainty is impossible. It is all very nihilistic. We get the same message from virtually all knowledge disciplines.
Without going into a full discussion of nihilism (in this post), I suggest at the core, it is saying that there is no intrinsic meaning in anything, therefore nothing really matters, and it is impossible to know anything for sure. Nihilism is a profound statement of hopelessness and powerlessness. Nihilism is wrong.
The same something that is wrong in nihilism is also present in science, philosophy, theology, metaphysics; virtually any system of knowledge. There are nuances to it, but deconstructing nihilism is not the purpose of this Substack post.
It is impossible that truth is impossible. It is impossible that existence is impossible. True + exist is my definition of real. It is impossible that real is impossible. It is impossible that reality is impossible.
Justified knowledge certainty is not only possible, it is necessary, e.g., could not, not exist. It is necessary that we can know the truth about existence, precisely because true and exist are real, and real means true and exist are ultimately simultaneous = everywhere all-at-once, even if only some of us know that with certainty. If someone does not know this, that is what ignorance is.
True + exist is a holon unity of wholeness. Holon means wholes within wholes, e.g., truth is whole and existence is whole, which literally means indivisible, inviolable, consistent, complete, and free of logical contradiction.
Two fatal logical contradictions: reification and infinite regress, are the killers of justified knowledge certainty, because if you are trapped between the merciless jaws of reification and infinite regress, then justified knowledge certainty is impossible (for you).
There are two tests to determine justified knowledge. The ontological test is: exist vs does not exist. The epistemological test is: true vs false.
LessWrong is an excellent platform for writers who think deeply about truth. One prominent voice on that platform is Eliezer Yudkowsky.
Eliezer Yudkowsky on LessWrong
The LessWrong mission statement is eminently sensible:
LessWrong is an online forum and community dedicated to improving human reasoning and decision-making. We seek to hold true beliefs and to be effective at accomplishing our goals. Each day, we aim to be less wrong about the world than the day before.
The guiding philosophy of LessWrong seems to be the application of rationality to seek truth. That guiding philosophy is also eminently sensible. In fact, the mission statement and guiding philosophy are virtually identical, e.g., rationality is the core = foundation of the purpose and method for LessWrong.
Rationality has a number of definitions on LessWrong, but perhaps the most canonical is that the more rational you are, the more likely your reasoning leads you to have accurate beliefs, and by extension, allows you to make decisions that most effectively advance your goals.
“What’s a Bias?” by Eliezer Yudkowsky, LessWrong, 26 November 2006,
We are here to pursue the great human quest for truth: for we have desperate need of the knowledge, and besides, we’re curious.
I have great respect for what the LessWrong platform is all about, but I believe it would be instructive to deconstruct the choice of name for the platform.
First, “less” is a degree term, and “wrong” is a category term. In other words, in LessWrong, less is a degree of wrong, which presumably permits that some things are less wrong and other things are more wrong, but does not permit certainty of knowledge of truth, notwithstanding, the mission of the platform is to pursue knowledge of truth.
I’m not just quibbling with this; my deconstruction is serious. Incremental gains of knowledge are normal and necessary, but always wrong is certainly not.
In fact, we know a great deal, actually approaching certainty, even about physical reality. With regard to physical, we know a great deal about process (approaching certainty, e.g., 2nd law of thermodynamics for physical heat exchange), and within any process, at least for those governed by laws of physics, we can very accurately calculate probabilities of occurrence, at least on average, but prediction of specific instances tends toward random with only 50% accuracy for specific physical outcomes.
In fact, we do not go from wrong to less wrong, we go from knowledge to more knowledge, and as necessary, change our minds about what we know, based upon new information.
The generic notation I use to state superpositions is [x/0/y], where x and y are elements of a complimentary pair, in coherence with logical contradiction, and the 0 is defined as a placeholder, to designate that the two elements remain distinct objects. The [brackets] communicate that the superposition is a whole (= a single state condition unity), and the placeholder 0 communicates that the elements are also whole, e.g., distinctly whole objects in their own right. Therefore, every superposition is a holon unity of wholeness, e.g., wholes within wholes, i.e., whole elements within a whole superposition.
In my cosmology, [right/0/wrong], [true\0/false], [exist/0/does not exist], [on/0/off], [alive/0/dead], [particle/0/wave], etc., are superpositions of logically contradictory state conditions. Each of those superpositions is a holon unity of wholeness, e.g., a single state condition with coherence of two logically contradictory state conditions, and each element of the pair is also intrinsically whole.
All superpositions are instances of conserved meta-information first information, in the meta-information matrix, inside the near-existence domain. The near-existence domain hosts everything that is possible or potential to exist, e.g., everything physical depends 100% upon an information blueprint that defines its existence, and all such blueprints are conserved in the meta-information matrix. Everything in near-existence domain is immaterial information, not physical, yet.
However, upon interaction with consciousness, decoherence necessarily occurs, and the superposition is broken, resulting in actual, say true or false, on or off, etc., but never both, same place same time, in actual existence domain. For instance, if true and false exist simultaneously, same place same time in actual existence domain, that is a fatal logical contradiction of the principle of non-contradiction (PNC), and that is certainly “wrong,” and it is equally certain, that wrong is not real, because wrong fails the epistemological truth test, even though it exists (like lies exist but fail the truth test).
Everything in near-existence domain has epistemological-immaterial-information-truth, notwithstanding the logical contradictions of the complementary pairs within each superposition holon. Nothing in near-existence is ontological-physical, yet. Before generic [observations/interactions/relations], there is only probability or possibility to exist, strictly limited to near-existence domain, and after generic [observations/interactions/relations], there is actual physical ontological existence in actual domain, and actual physical is empirically observable, measurable, quantifiable (e.g., quantization), and subject to disproof. Once something is actual, probability can no longer be used to describe it; some other system of mathematics must be used, e.g., geometry, algebra, calculus, sets, etc. Furthermore, probability is always a measure and prediction of averages, never any exact instance of any physical object or motion of any physical object.
Everything in near-existence domain has a-priori truth value, because everything in near-existence domain is conserved meta-information first information. For instance, all superpositions, all laws of physics and all fundamental state conditions, say wholeness, simultaneous, random, chaos, etc., are instances of conserved first information. Nothing in near-existence domain is subject to proof or disproof, but is subject to decoherence, which means resolution of the superposition, to only one of the two logically contradictory elements of the complimentary pair, which means actual existence domain emerges dynamically from near-existence domain. That does not mean near-existence domain causes actual existence domain, rather, they literally exist inside each other, which I refer to as ultimately simultaneous.
It is certainly a serious issue, if creators of the LessWrong platform, and those who manage it, actually believe truth is impossible to determine with certainty. Of course, they are not alone in making that assumption, seemingly so trivially true that it is just taken for granted, e.g., the entire scientific method is based upon exactly the same incorrect metaphysical assumption.
Authors posting on the LessWrong platform, for the most part, do present insightful and useful interpretations of many things, sometimes even brilliant ones, but none of them that I have so far discovered, comes to the actual ground for justified knowledge of truth about existence.
The reveal for my decision to deconstruct the name LessWrong is that the name is itself necessarily a fatal logical contradiction, i.e., infinite regress. Fatal logical infinite regress is certainly not a ground for truth, nor a ground for certainty, nor a ground for justified knowledge.
Surprise, surprise, LessWrong is actually wrong; what else could it be? Less is a degree of the category wrong. Less-wrong-to-infinity is still wrong, therefore, infinite regress. Less-wrong-to-infinity is analogous to infinite zeros added together, amounts to exactly zero, because wrong necessarily refers to an absence of real, the same way zero can only refer to an absence of something. Less-wrong can never arrive at true, ever, in any possible universe. That does not mean it is impossible to know the ground of truth, rather, only that less wrong is not the path to get there; natural a-priori is the only path to get there.
Something exists and something is true. It is necessary that human beings have some way to know with certainty, if something exists or does not exist, and if something is true or false. That is the only possible foundation for building and sustaining a civilization. Applying the epistemological truth test and the ontological exist test is what rationality actually is. Logical contradiction is a killer of rationality.
It is necessary that humans know that they know, with strong-feeling-confidence. Strong feeling-confidence depends upon justified knowledge. Justified knowledge depends upon a-priori first, and empirical observation of actual physical later (i.e., confirmation), then description of empirical with mathematical axioms, a distant third (i.e., confirmation of confirmation). The empirical observation is evidence to support a-priori, e.g., it adds support to the strong-feeling-confidence that leads to a possible global consensus, say for example, what to do with artificial intelligence (AI).
In other posts I will discuss AI and explain that it poses an existential threat to human beings, precisely because AI makes it all but impossible to differentiate true from false, therefore makes global consensus, all but impossible, without a set of globally enforced restrictions. AI is a killer of justified knowledge.
The ground of certainty cannot be physical and empirical, because physical necessarily exists with a beginning, and everything with a beginning must be caused to begin, therefore that which is physical fails both the epistemological test, which means nothing physical can explain itself, and also fails the ontological test, which means nothing physical can create itself. Therefore, something necessarily exists without beginning to cause everything with beginning to begin to exist.
There are five natural a-priori axioms in the previous paragraph, e.g., 1-5 in this list, and I add two others, 6-7, to further the conversation.
1. physical necessarily exists with a beginning
2. everything with a beginning must be caused to begin
3. nothing physical can explain itself
4. nothing physical can create itself
5. something necessarily exists without beginning to cause everything with beginning to begin to exist
6. only eternal exists without beginning
7. eternal causes everything that exists with beginning
Those seven natural a-priori axioms are not the result of any empirical observation; you either see them or you do not. Nor are they subject to any kind of proof, e.g., some imagined empirical test, or mathematical proof, nor are they disprovable. All further discourse about existence and truth depends upon a set of natural a-priori axioms (certainly including those seven) as the ground for justified knowledge certainty.
Furthermore, only consciousness has self-awareness, e.g., awareness of awareness, therefore consciousness is the only source of natural a-priori axioms; empirical observation is absolutely useless, and evidence of any kind is absolutely redundant. Scientific method, e.g., possibility to disprove any hypothesis, is irrelevant. Natural a-priori axioms cannot be proved, disproved, or empirically observed away. Natural a-priori axioms are necessarily true everywhere, all-at-once, therefore true in every possible universe. Natural a-priori axioms are ultimately simultaneous with everything everywhere all-at-once. Knowing that you know, is what certainty feels like to an ego consciousness.
“LessWrong” as name for a writer’s platform, is clever, in a nihilistic sort of way, e.g., nobody can know anything for sure, etc. On the other hand, “not even wrong,” the phrase first used by Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli, is brilliant, because it describes that which is nothing, and nothing does not refer to anything that could possibly exist. Nothing is not something. “Not even wrong” permits the possibility of justified knowledge certainty. For instance, it is certain that our universe did not create itself out of nothing, i.e., that statement is not only wrong, it is not even wrong. To know what is “not even wrong” not only permits knowing what is true, it actually requires that it is possible to know what is true. “Not even wrong” permits successful application of the epistemological truth test and ontological exist test, from a foundation of natural a-priori justified certainty. “LessWrong,” bores deep, but never gets to the ground of natural a-priori justified certainty. “LessWrong” is an open invitation to permit yourself to be sucked into a black hole of infinite regress, by denying the existence of the truth that they seek.
As I read through some of Yudkowsky’s posts on LessWrong I was left with the strong impression that he was a physicalist, which if correct, means he endorses physical closure, which means the foundation of truth for him is empirical observation of actual physical. That is also the basic assumption of the scientific method, e.g., Karl Popper’s distinction between science and metaphysics is the possibility something can, with empirical observation, be disproved. If not, it is metaphysics; if yes, it is science, say for instance physics science.
“What is Evidence?” by Eliezer Yudkowsky, LessWrong, 22nd Sep 2007,
Yudkowsky: …rationalists put such a heavy premium on the paradoxical-seeming claim that a belief is only really worthwhile if you could, in principle, be persuaded to believe otherwise…Some belief systems, in a rather obvious trick to reinforce themselves, say that certain beliefs are only really worthwhile if you believe them unconditionally—no matter what you see, no matter what you think. Your brain is supposed to end up in the same state regardless. Hence the phrase, ‘blind faith.’ If what you believe doesn’t depend on what you see, you’ve been blinded as effectively as by poking out your eyeballs.
Popper, Yudkowsky, and virtually all scientists, certainly all who endorse the doctrine of physicalism, particularly the false metaphysical assumption of physical closure, fall into the merciless jaws of fatal logical contradiction; reification and infinite regress.
What they all miss is natural a-priori, specifically, natural a-priori axioms.
If you read Yudkowsky’s statement carefully, I believe you will notice several errors, at least once I point them out for you.
1. “…rationalists put such a heavy premium on the paradoxical-seeming claim that a belief is only really worthwhile if you could, in principle, be persuaded to believe otherwise” is a restatement of Popper’s central thesis, e.g., it only qualifies as science if you can, in principle, disprove it. I am in agreement with that thesis; I accept that as a statement with truth value.
2. A hidden assumption in Popper’s thesis and Yudkowsky’s statement is that science is, if not the only, then certainly the best method to determine the truth of existence, i.e., what is real. That is an incorrect assumption. In fact, the scientific method is strictly limited to determine the truth of existence of that which is physical, finite and does actually exist or could possibly exist. For instance, empirical observation is strictly ontologically limited to observation of that which is physical. However, it is certain that not everything that exists is physical, therefore, the scientific method, say empirical observation, can tell us, literally nothing about that which is immaterial, e.g., love, consciousness, eternal, etc.
3. A further hidden assumption is that proof is the only foundation of all knowledge. The problem with that assumption is that it is a profound exaggeration, an unambiguous statement of over-belief. Proof is an excellent foundation of knowledge, but completely omits from its domain, everything that is not subject to proof, as if anything not subject to proof does not matter at all, or as if anything not subject to proof could be summarily dismissed as not true. Who could rationally deny love by claiming it cannot be proven with empirical observation? Denial of eternal is a badge of honor among physicalists, because eternal cannot be empirically observed, cannot be proven, in fact, cannot be disproven either, therefore, according to physicalists, belief in eternal is placed in the logical category of superstition; strictly limited to the status of myth, i.e., something just made up in imagination (like unicorns or orcs).
4. “Some belief systems, in a rather obvious trick to reinforce themselves, say that certain beliefs are only really worthwhile if you believe them unconditionally—no matter what you see, no matter what you think.” Yudkowsky is actually saying that empirical observation of actual physical, is the only way to make your belief justified, rather than being merely an opinion. If true, that would mean that empirical observation is the only way to know if what you believe is epistemologically true, which is the metaphysical assumption of the doctrine of physicalism, e.g., physicalism literally denies immaterial even exists (i.e., consciousness does not exist, eternal does not exist, etc.). According to doctrine of physicalism, the only thing actually real is that which is physical and therefore can be empirically observed. It is ironic, because the metaphysical assumption of physical closure cannot be disproved, therefore cannot qualify as science, according to Popper, with whom I agree. Furthermore, natural a-priori axioms do not mean, nor do they imply, ignoring empirical and believing the most prosperous things, rather, they are statements of truth value independent of any possible empirical verification. That certainly does not mean we cannot see that empirical observation supports the axioms, only that no empirical observation can defeat the axioms, exactly the same way no empirical observation could defeat the metaphysical assumption of physical closure. A great deal of metaphysics is nonsense, including the abstraction of physical closure., but the metaphysiscs of a-priori is certainly not nonesense.
5. Yudkowski, apparently either is not aware of a-priori, or he denies it, or he assumes it does not matter. A-priori (Kant) means independent of empirical observation, independent of actual physical. A-priori means knowledge certainty, independent of any proof, explanation, or further justification; in fact, a-prior is the justification ground for all epistemological knowledge of truth. Truth is 100% epistemological, and epistemological is 100% immaterial, not physical. Epistemological is something, not nothing, therefore epistemological does actually ontologically exist, but it exists only in immaterial consciousness, e.g., truth exists as cognitive abstraction. Epistemological exists only as knowledge of information about something, without itself existing as something physical.
6. I have not read all of Yudkowki’s posts, but so far, I have seen no reference to consciousness. He knows about meta-awareness, which means awareness of awareness. I believe it is certain that only consciousness has meta-awareness, as an identity condition purpose, identity condition function, and identity condition property. So, even if he does not call it consciousness, e.g., he might say it is mind and he might assume mind is what a physical brain is doing, therefore deny consciousness even exists (a common assumption of physicalism), but when he talks about meta-awareness he is necessarily talking about consciousness, and it is certain nothing physical has it. I define mind to be an instance of ego consciousness docked to a physical body/brain/central nervous system organism. Ego consciousness makes good use of the physical brain, but awareness does not exist without ego consciousness, e.g., a physical brain without consciousness is not much of anything, except tissue mass.
7. If you deny or ignore a-priori, then you deny or ignore the only real foundation for justified knowledge, which is natural a-priori axioms. Natural a-priori axioms are the ground for all justified knowledge. Mathematical axioms are 100% dependent upon a set of natural a-priori axioms, and remain dependent upon further proof, which as Gödel has clearly shown, cannot be provided, e.g., all systems of mathematics necessarily remain inconsistent and incomplete. Therefore, mathematical axioms are not the ground for justified knowledge, only natural a-priori axioms can provide that ground.
8. You begin with natural a-priori axioms, then with sound logical inference, you apply the epistemological truth test, and ontological exist test, which combined are the real test, and that establishes justified knowledge, without logical contradiction.
Physical closure is in fact, a fatal viral infection of logical contradiction. Physical closure is assumed to mean 1) physical can create itself, which is fatal logical infinite regress, and 2) physical can explain itself, which is fatal logical reification category error.
Yudkowski, makes religion a straw-man and deconstructs it, but he gets us no closer to truth by doing so. He still misses coming to ground; he still misses natural a-priori justified knowledge. I believe, like all physicalists, he denies eternal, e.g., he seems to imply deconstructing religion accomplishes some logical defeat of the ontological proof.
The ontological proof is a natural a-priori axiom: it is true that eternal exists. In other posts I will explore the ontological proof of eternal.