So that we are on the same page, let me first say that I have an open view. My responses to your were simply an effort to be more precise about the contrary view.
Thanks. I did surmise that eventually.
Knowledge is acquired/formed information.
OK. Let's say that books are found in a library, atomic fuel is housed in a reactor, cars are stored in a garage, water is held in a tank. What is knowledge/information stored in, what form does it have? I am looking for a very practical answer rather than a philosophical one.
One can gain knowledge through empirical/experiential observation or through rational constructs.
This sounds like you feel that knowledge is something objective out there and you can go and grab a handful of it and stick it in your memory somewhere. I don't quite know though. Does that sound like what you believe?
In what sense do you suppose knowledge has a purpose? Knowledge, per se, has function, though I would not suggest it has purpose/telos. Knowledge is a necessary element of a functioning mind. Without knowledge there is no decision making, only instinct. Knowledge is an element of cause as well as an element of anticipation and prediction.
In my opinion, knowledge is something that must be capable of being shared, communicated; and it must be in a form that permits this even if it is not actually shared with others.
Knowledge is formed/acquired, in one way or another, by an individual mind. That being the case, knowledge is formed/acquired within a particular context. One's context can limit or further one's knowledge in the sense that ability, opportunity, or quantity of information may or may not be available.
So what do you think is the difference, if any, between some particular context and the knowledge of that context?
There is still the question of the relationship between existence and knowledge. Does the term "knowledge" only apply to existing or existed events/things? Most that have an open view acknowledge that knowledge of potentials is possible. In fact, the human mind is capable of knowing potentials, some in great detail. God, then, ought to know potentials in the most detail possible. The question becomes what is the nature of the difference between detailed knowledge of the potentiality and the knowledge of the actualized potentiality?
I don't. Except that if you think of a possibility, then the thought is itself real, even if the possibility is not real. In my view, in an open world, an open universe, the course of the universe
as a whole is fundamentally and absolutely unpredictable. You can imagine possibilities for its future and you can even imagine very realistic possibilities in limited contexts, but
as a whole you cannot imagine every possibility. That is what I mean when I use the words 'open', 'openness' etc.
And I am including God in this. Make no mistake. God, as creator of the
physical universe, is still open to his own future, otherwise he would not be alive. We ought to distinguish between the
real universe and the
physical universe. The physical universe is part of the real universe. The real universe is simply the sum total of all that is real, including God. So when I say that the universe is open and hence absolutely unpredictable, I mean the
real universe. But this is going a bit far. First we ought to understand we mean by 'knowledge' itself.
