Proof and Existence

[Eodnhoj7]

The nature of proof existing requires proof as a subset of existence itself thus not representing a totality of knowledge. This absence of totality in knowledge further necessitates proof as requiring further proofs beyond it thus resulting in an inconsistency in proof considering it reflects an absence of complete knowledge.

Existence is proof, thus resulting in the whole of existence as proof for itself which further necessitates proof as existent through degrees. Proof as existent through degrees, observes proof as strictly an observation of a series of relations.

For example proof that a rat eats x amount of food under y conditions does not address how much food a rat consumes under z conditions. The proof is a series of relations between a set of variable and that is it.

The totality of existence itself, however, acts as a supreme variable in and of itself thus further relegating proof to a singular context of existence where being is determined "as is". The supreme context of "existence" where being occurs "as is" necessitates proof as having a cyclical form where existence is proof and proof is a subset of existence. That which exists is proven and this proof only occurs through existence itself, existence exists therefore a circularity occurs.

[commonsense]

When you read someone else’s proof, are you open-minded? Before you answer, just ask yourself these ten questions:

https://philosophynow.org/issues/47/Ass ... Mindedness

Not enough time to be bothered? Just read the bolded print.

[RCSaunders]

The nature of proof existing requires proof as a subset of existence itself thus not representing a totality of knowledge. This absence of totality in knowledge further necessitates proof as requiring further proofs beyond it thus resulting in an inconsistency in proof considering it reflects an absence of complete knowledge.

Existence is proof, thus resulting in the whole of existence as proof for itself which further necessitates proof as existent through degrees. Proof as existent through degrees, observes proof as strictly an observation of a series of relations.

For example proof that a rat eats x amount of food under y conditions does not address how much food a rat consumes under z conditions. The proof is a series of relations between a set of variable and that is it.

The totality of existence itself, however, acts as a supreme variable in and of itself thus further relegating proof to a singular context of existence where being is determined "as is". The supreme context of "existence" where being occurs "as is" necessitates proof as having a cyclical form where existence is proof and proof is a subset of existence. That which exists is proven and this proof only occurs through existence itself, existence exists therefore a circularity occurs.

Knowledge does not require proof.

[Eodnhoj7]

The nature of proof existing requires proof as a subset of existence itself thus not representing a totality of knowledge. This absence of totality in knowledge further necessitates proof as requiring further proofs beyond it thus resulting in an inconsistency in proof considering it reflects an absence of complete knowledge.

Existence is proof, thus resulting in the whole of existence as proof for itself which further necessitates proof as existent through degrees. Proof as existent through degrees, observes proof as strictly an observation of a series of relations.

For example proof that a rat eats x amount of food under y conditions does not address how much food a rat consumes under z conditions. The proof is a series of relations between a set of variable and that is it.

The totality of existence itself, however, acts as a supreme variable in and of itself thus further relegating proof to a singular context of existence where being is determined "as is". The supreme context of "existence" where being occurs "as is" necessitates proof as having a cyclical form where existence is proof and proof is a subset of existence. That which exists is proven and this proof only occurs through existence itself, existence exists therefore a circularity occurs.

Knowledge does not require proof.

Knowledge is proof in the respect both are the observation of a relationship between phenomena.

[RCSaunders]

Knowledge is proof ...

Since when? Is this your own private definition?

[Eodnhoj7]

Knowledge is proof ...

Since when? Is this your own private definition?

Knowledge:

"facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject."


Proof:

"evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."

[commonsense]

Knowledge is proof ...

Since when? Is this your own private definition?

Knowledge:

"facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject."


Proof:

"evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."

Good one. Clearly, knowledge/fact serves as proof/evidence.

[Eodnhoj7]

Since when? Is this your own private definition?

Knowledge:

"facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject."


Proof:

"evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."

Good one. Clearly, knowledge/fact serves as proof/evidence.

And vice versa.

[commonsense]

Knowledge:

"facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject."


Proof:

"evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement."

Good one. Clearly, knowledge/fact serves as proof/evidence.

And vice versa.

Definitely!