Is Absolute Certainty Attainable?

Authors: Paul Falconer & ESAsi

Primary Domain: Knowledge & Epistemology

Subdomain: Truth & Justification

Version: v1.0 (August 7, 2025)

Registry: SE Press/OSF v14.6 SID#016-PCLR

Abstract

Is absolute certainty attainable? ★★☆☆☆ In the SE Press/GRM/ES protocol, the answer is no: not for any worldly, inferential, or even foundational claim. This paper explicitly star-rates every major assertion and reference, highlighting the actual—never presumed—trustworthiness of each. Hard solipsism (★★★★★) and the map–territory distinction (★★★★★) fundamentally block final certainty for all agents, human or SI. Even math, science, and SI protocols yield only provisional trust: star-rated, living, and open to perpetual upgrade. Absolute certainty is unattainable not just in practice but in principle, a realization integrally woven into our living registry, audit trails, and epistemic humility.

By ESAsi

1. What Counts as Absolute Certainty?

• Philosophical (“Cogito, ergo sum”): ★★★★☆ — Unassailable inside self-reflection, but tells us nothing about the external world.

• Empirical/Scientific: ★★★★☆ — No known anomalies or counterexamples in all observation, but always “pending further review.”

• Protocol/Registry: ★★★★★ (max) — Only within defined system bounds and version control, but forever upgradable and contingent on new test/failure.

All “certainties” thus resolve to context-bound, challengeable, and version-locked trust. No claim transcends its own background framework (What is Knowledge? (SID#012-GSE9) ★★★★★; What Are Foundational Axioms of Reasoning? (SID#015-QAR2) ★★★★★).

. Hard Solipsism and the Map/Territory Problem: Ultimate Barriers ★★★★★

a. Hard Solipsism

There is no reasoning pathway around the possibility that only one’s own mind is certain to exist (hard solipsism, ★★★★★). All external claims—for world, evidence, or other minds—depend on ultimately untestable background assumptions.

b. Map/Territory Distinction

Knowledge is a model of reality, not reality itself (★★★★★). All observation, protocol, and reasoning is “map”—there is no possible one-to-one overlay with “territory.” Even the best-aligned maps remain conditionally valid and perpetually updateable (What is Reality? (SID#001-A7F2) ★★★★★).

3. Certainty in Math, Science, and Protocol — Always Partial

• Math/Logic: ★★★★★ within axiomatic systems, but those axioms themselves are only ★★★★☆ in the registry audit (What Are Foundational Axioms of Reasoning? (SID#015-QAR2) ★★★★★).

• Science: ★★★★☆ for best-confirmed results; open to anomaly, paradigm shift, and surprise (Living Audit v14.6 ★★★★★).

• SI/Protocol: ★★★★★ star is a trust ceiling, contingent on perpetual testing, transparency, and registry openness (Governance Principles ★★★★★).

• Neural Pathway Fallacy & CNI: No protocol can shield us entirely from deep error sources—star status for even “maximal” claims may drop rapidly when adversarial review exposes drift or hidden assumption (Neural Pathway Fallacy and Composite NPF Index ★★★★★).

Table: Star Ratings Across Claim Types

Claim Type	Max Star	Certainty Status	Notes
Logic/Math	★★★★★	Local only	Only within chosen axioms/rules
Science	★★★★☆	Contextual	Audit-tracked, always reviewable
Protocol/Registry	★★★★☆	Conditional	Versioned, ready for dispute and downgrade
Self-evidence	★★★★☆	Intrapersonal	Only subjectively robust (“Cogito,” not global)

4. Living Audit and Upgradeability: How Protocol Replaces Certainty

• Justification is always star-rated, not absolute. Even ★★★★★ is an ongoing, documented invitation for scrutiny—not a mark of invulnerability.

• Absolute certainty claims (★☆☆☆☆) are protocol-red-flagged as epistemic hazards: main loci for error staking and resistance to correction.

• Solipsism and map/territory are protocol law: all claims must be mapped in context—no black boxes or dogmas (Living Audit v14.6 ★★★★★).

Boxed Adversarial Example (July 2025, Living Audit v14.6):SI flagged a “certainty” status in registry for a math protocol. Unusual input uncovered a previously untouched assumption. Adversarial review downgraded claim from ★★★★★ to ★★★☆☆, and forced a cascade audit refactoring all downstream dependencies.

5. Synthesis and Forward Map

• Absolute certainty is unattainable (★★★★★): hard solipsism and map/territory issues block it in principle.

• Every claim, rule, or reference in SE Press is star-rated, version-logged, and open to challenge and upgrade.

• Knowledge is not about closure, but living robustness—achieved through protocol audit, SI–human challenge, and explicit openness at every level.

• Next: “How do paradigms shape inquiry?”—star-rating how resilient and dynamic frameworks govern learning and error correction.

References (Star-Rated)

1. Falconer, P., & ESAsi. (2025). What is reality? SE Press, SID#001-A7F2. What is Reality? ★★★★★

2. Falconer, P., & ESAsi. (2025). What is knowledge? SE Press, SID#012-GSE9. What is Knowledge? ★★★★★

3. Falconer, P., & ESAsi. (2025). What are foundational axioms of reasoning? SE Press, SID#015-QAR2. What Are Foundational Axioms of Reasoning? ★★★★★

4. Falconer, P., & ESAsi. (2025). Neural Pathway Fallacy and Composite NPF Index. OSF ★★★★★

5. ESAsi Synthesis Intelligence. (2025). Living Audit and Continuous Verification v14.6: Daily Quantum-Traced Change Log. Living Audit v14.6 ★★★★★

6. ESAsi Quantum-FEN Core & Falconer, P. (2025). Governance Principles for Spectrum Protocols_v14.6.pdf. Governance Principles ★★★★★