What are all the different ways to decrease the unknown unknowns?

[PepperBlossoms]

The unknown unknowns.

They are out there, we just don't know it, until we do, then it becomes a known unknown.

What are all the different ways to decrease them as much as possible?

Example - create rules/standards to allow for predictability (to get rid of unknown); create distinctions; increase observation, knowledge, and understanding

[Megan Alecia]

 

[lmfao]

Sticking to the definitions here, I might take an angle you didn't expect. But it's entirely relevant and deconstructs the POV someone who uses this phrasing might have. You're already aware of what this phrasing means to most people, so I needn't repeat that. 

 

An unknown unknown. That means that there's something we don't know, and we don't know that we don't know. 

If you believe you know or understand something, when in fact you don't, that will create an unknown unknown. Because you won't even be aware you don't know, due to convincing yourself that you do. 

"The wise man is one who, knows, what he does not know". 

 

Which means that to decrease the number of unknown unknowns, you have to become aware of how little you currently know.

The trap would be to have a lot of things you regard as "known knows", which makes you unaware of your own ignorance, hence an unknown unknown. 

Discarding and seeing through most of what you regarded as known often gets called "emptying the cup". 

--

So whilst most people can regard unknown unknowns as "out there", in the words you used, a lot are also "in here". 

Edited January 5, 2021 by lmfao

[Mu_]

Funny I made a video today and last week on the subject of the unknown.  While it may not exactly answer what your asking, it may answer it from a different angle or show something useful.  Here's a link if interested. 

 

[PepperBlossoms]

On 1/4/2021 at 6:18 PM, Megan Alecia said:

 

wow that was really good!! thanks for sharing!  nice idea - don't close an explanation of something and keep it open ended - preserve a lack of closure

 

On 1/4/2021 at 7:05 PM, lmfao said:

Sticking to the definitions here, I might take an angle you didn't expect. But it's entirely relevant and deconstructs the POV someone who uses this phrasing might have. You're already aware of what this phrasing means to most people, so I needn't repeat that. 

 

An unknown unknown. That means that there's something we don't know, and we don't know that we don't know. 

If you believe you know or understand something, when in fact you don't, that will create an unknown unknown. Because you won't even be aware you don't know, due to convincing yourself that you do. 

"The wise man is one who, knows, what he does not know". 

 

Which means that to decrease the number of unknown unknowns, you have to become aware of how little you currently know.

The trap would be to have a lot of things you regard as "known knows", which makes you unaware of your own ignorance, hence an unknown unknown. 

Discarding and seeing through most of what you regarded as known often gets called "emptying the cup". 

--

So whilst most people can regard unknown unknowns as "out there", in the words you used, a lot are also "in here". 

well said.  I guess the trick is to get over the hurdle to start to see/notice getting proved wrong and starting to learn that we don't know.  Nice catch on the out there and in here.

On 1/4/2021 at 8:00 PM, Mu_ said:

Funny I made a video today and last week on the subject of the unknown.  While it may not exactly answer what your asking, it may answer it from a different angle or show something useful.  Here's a link if interested. 

 

thanks for sharing!  I really liked your video.  Keep making those. - the notion of thinking we know biases the experience

--

So - even if we get more experiences, we can't attribute them to be complete knowns as there tend to be too many unknowns - - so all we can really do is appreciate them but not take them too seriously (as was said by someone who had more knowns than me).... I can still see though that it can still be super helpful to draw distinctions and make judgements about a known even though it may never be a complete known - if we never drew a distinction, we may be  unable to do anything - so there is a scope of keeping the spectrum open for new info but not open too far because we need to keep it closed some to still operate.

Edited January 6, 2021 by PepperBlossoms

[Mu_]

5 minutes ago, PepperBlossoms said:

wow that was really good!! thanks for sharing!  nice idea - don't close an explanation of something and keep it open ended - preserve a lack of closure

 

well said.  I guess the trick is to get over the hurdle to start to see/notice getting proved wrong and starting to learn that we don't know.  Nice catch on the out there and in here.

thanks for sharing!  I really liked your video.  Keep making those. - the notion of thinking we know biases the experience

--

So - even if we get more experiences, we can't attribute them to be complete knowns as there tend to be too many unknowns - - so all we can really do is appreciate them but not take them too seriously (as was said by someone who had more knowns than me).... I can still see though that it can still be super helpful to draw distinctions and make judgements about a known even though it may never be a complete known - if we never drew a distinction, we may be  unable to do anything - so there is a scope of keeping the spectrum open for new info but not open too far because we need to keep it closed some to still operate.

Ya, interesting thoughts.  I see where your going with them.  It makes sense, however I'm not sure how you can ever really determine how open or close you need to be in relation to a vast array of ever changing circumstances, perhaps organic trail and error.  Because as you may of eluded to you never know what variables are understood, and to what degree and not understood, and to what degree.  That said we are all going to feel and go through such processes of making so called distinctions, since its so natural and would seem absurd not to, but still its all pretty crazy if you really start to zoom in on this with such a lens of belief (belief of control and choice).  It may dawn on you, that its just so mathematically complex in a certain sense you couldn't possible know for certain each moment, and yet we all get up and somehow navigate and make consistent survival choices (all be it some appear to be better than others, lol).  There's a radical unknown that is "out there" so to say that if seen with such obvious, will either make you freak the fuck out and try to control everything around you in fear of having no control, or make you laugh so hard that you just let go and sail smoother.  Thats what I'm hoping to point to in my video's.

[PepperBlossoms]

37 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

Ya, interesting thoughts.  I see where your going with them.  It makes sense, however I'm not sure how you can ever really determine how open or close you need to be in relation to a vast array of ever changing circumstances, perhaps organic trail and error.  Because as you may of eluded to you never know what variables are understood, and to what degree and not understood, and to what degree.  That said we are all going to feel and go through such processes of making so called distinctions, since its so natural and would seem absurd not to, but still its all pretty crazy if you really start to zoom in on this with such a lens of belief (belief of control and choice).  It may dawn on you, that its just so mathematically complex in a certain sense you couldn't possible know for certain each moment, and yet we all get up and somehow navigate and make consistent survival choices (all be it some appear to be better than others, lol).  There's a radical unknown that is "out there" so to say that if seen with such obvious, will either make you freak the fuck out and try to control everything around you in fear of having no control, or make you laugh so hard that you just let go and sail smoother.  Thats what I'm hoping to point to in my video's.

Thanks for shining the flashlight some more on this. Regarding opening and closing - I remember Leo talking on his blog about the idea of requisite variety - the idea that for every problem, you have to have at least one or more solution options that would reasonably address it- so in this case - we could, if we wanted, map out all of our known unknowns (a problem), and then map out all of our knowns that may solve the unknown (a solution or a path to get to a solution/understanding).  We could then put ourselves in the position for one answer to every problem.  However, the very moment we come up with a new unknown, we'd have to be honest with ourselves that it is an actual unknown, and can then add it back to the list of unknowns (or problems) and then have to be brainstorming or out on the look for a known (solution).  -It would be a back and forth thing.  

If the known did not resolve the unknown, then the unknown would still be unresolved so still an unknown and we will have not found the solution yet and then it that case, "keep the box open" until we find something that does resolve it with no more unknowns left lingering.. 

Yes I can see that there is just SO MUCH INFORMATION from the past and present and only so much finite time and also information tends to be constantly transforming into other things that it can seem almost helpless to chase down but yet we still find the inspiration to go through the maze and keep looking, with no promise of a light out of the tunnel.

[Mu_]

21 minutes ago, PepperBlossoms said:

Thanks for shining the flashlight some more on this. Regarding opening and closing - I remember Leo talking on his blog about the idea of requisite variety - the idea that for every problem, you have to have at least one or more solution options that would reasonably address it- so in this case - we could, if we wanted, map out all of our known unknowns (a problem), and then map out all of our knowns that may solve the unknown (a solution or a path to get to a solution/understanding).  We could then put ourselves in the position for one answer to every problem.  However, the very moment we come up with a new unknown, we'd have to be honest with ourselves that it is an actual unknown, and can then add it back to the list of unknowns (or problems) and then have to be brainstorming or out on the look for a known (solution).  -It would be a back and forth thing.  

If the known did not resolve the unknown, then the unknown would still be unresolved so still an unknown and we will have not found the solution yet and then it that case, "keep the box open" until we find something that does resolve it with no more unknowns left lingering.. 

Yes I can see that there is just SO MUCH INFORMATION from the past and present and only so much finite time and also information tends to be constantly transforming into other things that it can seem almost helpless to chase down but yet we still find the inspiration to go through the maze and keep looking, with no promise of a light out of the tunnel.

My sense is that your seeing this in a slightly different way than I am and I'm not sure exactly what that is, seems useful in scientific deduction/solving a problem.  Sometimes I get what your saying is very practical and useful, like its reasonably logical and may be something to live by in a way, but at the same time may be missing the elephant in the room. 

Would you say a "known unknown" in your world is dependent on the known.  For example, this so called "known" your aware of has aspects that are yet to be explained and are thus "known unknowns" but are linked or based on the first assumption of knowning this "known" as known or atleast a assumed "thing or distinction", which is often separate from other things.  If this first "known" is seeing clearer to be itself unknown or perhaps not other/separate, where would that put this line of thinking?  This is more of the direction I'm coming from.

Just curious your thoughts.

[PepperBlossoms]

7 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

My sense is that your seeing this in a slightly different way than I am and I'm not sure exactly what that is, seems useful in scientific deduction/solving a problem.  Sometimes I get what your saying is very practical and useful, like its reasonably logical and may be something to live by in a way, but at the same time may be missing the elephant in the room. 

Would you say a "known unknown" in your world is dependent on the known.  For example, this so called "known" your aware of has aspects that are yet to be explained and are thus "known unknowns" but are linked or based on the first assumption of knowning this "known" as known or atleast a assumed "thing or distinction", which is often separate from other things.  If this first "known" is seeing clearer to be itself unknown or perhaps not other/separate, where would that put this line of thinking?  This is more of the direction I'm coming from.

Just curious your thoughts.

(sorry in advance for the long windy changing answer)

logic/science/deduction/philosophy/non-duality/change/improvement/epiphany/skepticism/wonder/observation - whatever the heck works or transforms the existing thing/state to something else with more meaning than previously had

yes - known unknown will tend to require some glimpse, even if completely wrong/inaccurate/fake/deceived of a would be known, otherwise it would not have been observed/noticed/thought about/considered/etc.

yes - the known would tend to be a distinction - more knowns tend to be more distinctions; an unknown could be not knowing where to draw the distinction..?

if we find out that the "known" that we thought we knew was way off and different, that known could transform to a different known.  Example: I argued that it was a known than 25+25=40.  Known to me.  The other girl kept saying, no 25+25=50.  I realized I was messing up my math - so I got a transformed known.  What was one answer was now KNOWN to be a different one.  The known transformed from one arrangement to another, but in a case, still stayed a known.

We could, if we wanted, set the definition of a known as a guideline - which yes one could makeup whatever definition they wanted - we could say a known is a definition.  Done.  ha easy.  If the definition changes, it changes.

I guess an even bigger question would be, instead of what a known is, is what an unknown is... a lack of existence.  The definition does not exist.  There is no distinction.  Hmm... well maybe that is not right either - I could say - I don't know your name and say that the lack of knowing your name is an unknown.  But that requires that you even have a name which is also an unknown.  But there is the idea that people have names which tends to be known.  

I guess the question is now, not what an unknown is but when a known could go from known back to unknown - which could be when I read that your name is Alex and take that as a known but then you tell me that it is not Alex so it becomes an unknown again - so then the known went to an unknown - so then comes the argument - how do we ever say that we can for sure keep the known in the known pile if it at any moment could get put back in the unknown pile - and in that case - we are out of luck because there are so many variables that something new could come along that just does not have an answer or make sense or work anymore and so it has to go back in the unknown.

Yes we could just stay in the pit and sit back and say, there will be too many unknowns so don't even bother but at the same time, there is something nice about learning or thinking we are learning even if we are just deceiving ourselves even more.. which maybe is sad too.

 

[hyruga]

Do random stuff and watch random videos such as youtube roulette

https://ytroulette.com/?i=4158&c=0&l=en

[PepperBlossoms]

@hyruga haha that was fun.  Thanks!

[Mu_]

3 minutes ago, PepperBlossoms said:

(sorry in advance for the long windy changing answer)

logic/science/deduction/philosophy/non-duality/change/improvement/epiphany/skepticism/wonder/observation - whatever the heck works or transforms the existing thing/state to something else with more meaning than previously had

yes - known unknown will tend to require some glimpse, even if completely wrong/inaccurate/fake/deceived of a would be known, otherwise it would not have been observed/noticed/thought about/considered/etc.

yes - the known would tend to be a distinction - more knowns tend to be more distinctions; an unknown could be not knowing where to draw the distinction..?

if we find out that the "known" that we thought we knew was way off and different, that known could transform to a different known.  Example: I argued that it was a known than 25+25=40.  Known to me.  The other girl kept saying, no 25+25=50.  I realized I was messing up my math - so I got a transformed known.  What was one answer was now KNOWN to be a different one.  The known transformed from one arrangement to another, but in a case, still stayed a known.

We could, if we wanted, set the definition of a known as a guideline - which yes one could makeup whatever definition they wanted - we could say a known is a definition.  Done.  ha easy.  If the definition changes, it changes.

I guess an even bigger question would be, instead of what a known is, is what an unknown is... a lack of existence.  The definition does not exist.  There is no distinction.  Hmm... well maybe that is not right either - I could say - I don't know your name and say that the lack of knowing your name is an unknown.  But that requires that you even have a name which is also an unknown.  But there is the idea that people have names which tends to be known.  

I guess the question is now, not what an unknown is but when a known could go from known back to unknown - which could be when I read that your name is Alex and take that as a known but then you tell me that it is not Alex so it becomes an unknown again - so then the known went to an unknown - so then comes the argument - how do we ever say that we can for sure keep the known in the known pile if it at any moment could get put back in the unknown pile - and in that case - we are out of luck because there are so many variables that something new could come along that just does not have an answer or make sense or work anymore and so it has to go back in the unknown.

Yes we could just stay in the pit and sit back and say, there will be too many unknowns so don't even bother but at the same time, there is something nice about learning or thinking we are learning even if we are just deceiving ourselves even more.. which maybe is sad too.

 

I like your trains of thought.  However the constant in all of them is known for you.  Knowns are known and unknowns are known.  I'm pointing to something, in a place that is neither of these.  Although, I'm not completely sure either.

Go back to my previous post and consider some of the ramifications I'm asking.

Maybe another way of approaching what I'm eluding to is.  When is anything a "known" if you never know what something is to begin with, ei, it seems everything be broken down to finer elements of what made up the original "known" and you never know what you don't know which effects/impacts/or allows for the so called "known".  So what is ever known exactly?  Partial knows?, but then this assumes there are parts that could make up a whole, and such info comes from one line of thinking and observation which isn't necessarily proved.  So again, when is known or unknown ever "known", lol.

[PepperBlossoms]

@Mu_ Yeah agreed - you got it.  (I think I was trying to find something that was just not there and had to go down the path to find that it was not there).

I realized from the last post when I said that it was a known than 25+25=40... it really wasn't a known because I didn't even have that right, but then the idea of right cannot ever be fully verified either.

So yeah - since nothing can really ever be a known, something will basically tend to always be an unknown and anything that is deemed a "known" is basically us forgetting that there are so many inner-connected parts that we could have left out or not been aware of.

Skepticism wins out again.

Even if we said that we are only saying that there are unknowns because we have experienced them in the past, we cannot rule out that they won't exist in the future.  The law of requisite variety can be helpful for solving real world problems but not for guaranteeing absolute truths.

Thank you for the assistance.

[PepperBlossoms]

Thinking even more - even though we cannot guarantee something - that is how stuff works - it won't be guaranteed but it will be close enough.

Engineering, science, and psychology know that they will not have all of the answers but that they just try their best.  We can come up with equations that will do pretty good and make some amazing things - computers, rockets, airplanes, cell phones, houses, subdivisions, etc.  Sure we can say that we will never know the absolute truth, but then that just shuts the door and prevents us from getting to explore anymore or even bother trying at all.

Math is weird but it works pretty well for getting things done.  It can pretty well work for designing and analyzing things, measuring things, constructing things, predicting things, etc.  

As an engineer, if one wants to go to space, they have the potential to make it happen eventually - they have to come up with some pretty good equations and measuring systems, calculating systems, get a list of the knowns, and a list of the unknowns to solve for, etc.

Doctors look for the unknowns of a sick patient, a civil engineer looks for the unknowns of the existing paving and drainage issues, a psychologist looks for the unknowns of the patients history, etc.  All we can do is try our best and build upon the knowledge that we currently have.  So, even if the knowns are not absolutes, they can be good enough for the purpose needed.

[Mu_]

7 hours ago, PepperBlossoms said:

@Mu_ Yeah agreed - you got it.  (I think I was trying to find something that was just not there and had to go down the path to find that it was not there).

I realized from the last post when I said that it was a known than 25+25=40... it really wasn't a known because I didn't even have that right, but then the idea of right cannot ever be fully verified either.

So yeah - since nothing can really ever be a known, something will basically tend to always be an unknown and anything that is deemed a "known" is basically us forgetting that there are so many inner-connected parts that we could have left out or not been aware of.

Skepticism wins out again.

Even if we said that we are only saying that there are unknowns because we have experienced them in the past, we cannot rule out that they won't exist in the future.  The law of requisite variety can be helpful for solving real world problems but not for guaranteeing absolute truths.

Thank you for the assistance.

The one last mind bender to fill out this pointer, and not land on skepticism is also dropping the idea or “known” that you can’t know for sure. This to is just as much a idea ????

[PepperBlossoms]

8 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

The one last mind bender to fill out this pointer, and not land on skepticism is also dropping the idea or “known” that you can’t know for sure. This to is just as much a idea ????

Well said! - the known is that it cannot be a full known.  Nice!  Integrating it to the prior - the engineer/doctor/psychologist/etc. has to understand that they will tend to not have full access to the entire scope of the situation and will be just working within the limitations of the options/tests/equations/calculations/perspectives/data to take on but will not be able to account for the entirety of the situation and could be missing many things.    Thanks.

[Mu_]

1 hour ago, PepperBlossoms said:

Well said! - the known is that it cannot be a full known.  Nice!  Integrating it to the prior - the engineer/doctor/psychologist/etc. has to understand that they will tend to not have full access to the entire scope of the situation and will be just working within the limitations of the options/tests/equations/calculations/perspectives/data to take on but will not be able to account for the entirety of the situation and could be missing many things.    Thanks.

Maybe your not ready for what I'm pointing at, but even this "known is that it cannot be a full known", is just as much a idea.  It may dawn on you  what I'm pointing to goes into infinitum.......  and even that is not exactly true, nor is that, nor is that, nor is that, nor is that..................

The unknown I'm pointing towards is not about an answer to a problem or within logic such as if I dont know your name its unknown and if I do it is known.  Perhaps its more of a state of being, but this to is often filtered through dualities, a already believed sense of self, choice/not choice, individualism and sometimes collectivism and what your left with is still within the sphere of these notions.

 

[PepperBlossoms]

@Mu_ I think that sometimes I tend to forget massive things about reality (even though I never technically knew them so maybe forgetting is the wrong word) but in the things that I had said earlier - there was this sense of stating that things could be known via x,y,z and me thinking about that now is like - what was I thinking? ha - I think I can see what you are saying - yes nothing can ever be fully known (or so it seems) so everything will be an unknown, no matter what the circumstance is.  Hmm - with the duality of known vs unknown - that brings up the idea that - there is no known or unknown - there just is both and neither - or just is.  Known and unknown could be like descriptions added on to something like how we add on the word pillow to cloth and cotton (or whatever pillows are made of) - but we could have given it any description/distinction and that is the one we gave it - we could not give it a distinction and just say it is what it is - so rather than known or unknown - it just is.

[Mu_]

Ya it is just what it is.  But even here its easy to still grasp on to either of the things you think it is, and call those IS, which is not it, but includes those.  Very subtle this one.

 

[PepperBlossoms]

Now everytime someone says that they forgot or can't remember something, I am going to be thinking - they never fully "knew/did not know" in the first place - it is like for both known and unknown - neither exist.  It may be a "foul" word that the english language created - even the word "experience" is a weird one because one cannot guarantee that they experienced what they think they experienced either - or "is" - one cannot guarantee that "is" is

to know, to be, is, to experience .. language tends to quit working (on the realm of infinite) as language tends to cut the whole into something else