That is precisely the problem right there - any language or perception is innately a mistruth, it deviates from the reality it attempts to describe, so everything we are consciously aware of, everything we say is innately false for it is not absolutely true. So I am not challenging that we can 'know' anything, I am challenging the common definition of knowledge, the Justified True Belief. I dont know much about philosophy, so maybe there are more definitions of knowledge, but JTB seems to be the most popular and widely accepted. I think that for knowledge to be true it must be absolutely equal to reality which it can never be, and that justification must turn out to be absolutely correct which is maybe possible in the context of mathematics for example never making context with reality nor supposing itself to, but rarely for language.

So, we do say that 'we know x is false' - it is apparently justifiable and perhaps could be seen as correct or 'true', therefore it is possible to 'know' that x is false using JTB. This a paradox, for 'x is false' cannot be a true statement, because it is a statement of falsity; if we say '1+1=5 is false' I do not see how that statement could ever be true. Double negatives is my problem, really... I know I'm not expressing this in a very coherent fashion, but I feel that two negatives make something more negative and less positive, but it seems that maths and philosophy have other ideas. I can believe that in formulaic expressions -1 - -1=0 yet in language 'no trees destroyed never' does not mean there are more trees than before, it means there are less, and this flies in direct contradiction to maths system of negatives.

If I take an example '-2 + -2 = -4' is a coherent analogy with 'some trees destroyed and more trees destroyed means there are less trees than at the start of this sentence', yet '-2 - -2 = 0' does not work coherently with 'some trees destroyed without some other trees being destroyed means there are less trees than at the start of this sentence' (it's equivalent to saying '-2 - -2 = -2' and that is patently false); if language could use a triple negative like maths then I theorize that we would be able to logically define knowledge, because we would be able to make a statement such as 'x is false' practically true.

Maybe I'm wrong, and 'x is false' can be true, but I can't accept it, if x means 2+2=6, then 'x is false is like saying '2+2=6 is in agreement with something such as 2x2=99' (not strictly true) and so 'x is false' doesn't really function in a coherent fashion. The statement 'x is false' cannot be true when functioning as an analogy with maths, if we were to invent systems of grammar that functioned in the same fashion as mathematical expressions of change then we might find a definition of knowledge that fits coherently with the things we can calculate as justified and true (when not used in conjunction with reality, ie in maths).

It's like this: 'London' (is) (=) the capital city of England' is false, the word 'is' infers some kind of '=', it's like saying 15=16 (they are two completely different concepts, one is a name the other is a compound noun?), the '=' is misplaced, so what we need is a symbol or word that will mean 'and the logical next step is' or something like '15 is similar to 16'.

My theory doesn't work without inventing these symbols and words... in fact it's probably not worth following through, it's so pedantic it ceases to be funny.

I don't know what it means to say that language or perception is a "mistruth". In fact, I am sorry to say that I don't know what the word "mistruth" means. It is not an English word.

To say knowledge must be true means only that for me to know that a certain proposition is true, that proposition must be true. So, if I know that Quito is the capital of Ecuador (which I do) then it has to be true that Quito is the capital of Ecuador. And, if Quito is not the capital of Ecuador, then neither I, nor anyone else, can know it is. Don't you agree with that? Knowledge is not equal to reality (or truth) because although if I know that something is true, then it must be true; nevertheless, it is not the case that if something is true then I know it. There have been, and I am sure, there are now, truths that I do not know, and that no one knows, but which remain to be discovered. So, knowledge is not the same as truth.

It is not true that "justification must be correct". There are two kinds of justification: deductive, and inductive. Deductive justification must be correct, because if the justification is deductive, then if the premises are true, then the conclusion must also be true. However, inductive justification, which is used in science, is not like that. The premises in an inductive justification, even if true, are only strong evidence for the conclusion. But the conclusion might still be false. Of course, if there is knowledge, then the conclusion is not, in fact, false, since false propositions cannot be known. You seem to think that justification must yield certainty. But that is not true. Science gives us knowledge, but not certainty.

My point is that JTB is not a satisfactory definition of knowledge, and that we would need new grammatical concepts in order to define knowledge.

I understand what you are saying about the inductive method of justification, and agree, so this means that a JTB is unsatisfactory.

I'm bored, it's 5 in the morning so I'm trying to come up with a satisfactory definition of knowledge, forgive me... but I think it's possible if we invent new concepts and fit them into English grammar.

A 'mistruth' is something that is close to the truth yet unsatisfactory, so it is like a misapprehension. Sorry, I seem to invent new words all the time.

the truth is that their is no truth. due to the impermanent nature of reality, and its reliance upon cause and effect, everything is logically subject to change even the most absolute of truths . Consider god(s), how many concepts of "god" have their been since the dawn of man. are they the same no. so even god changes, and so do his truths. first the world was flat and center, now its round and off, soon it will be gone and no one on earth will seek truth. their is no truth that is the truth speaking in absolute terms of course. in relative terms their is much truth im not denying that.

a paradox for trying to twist the truth out of civilization is 'the truth is ineffable'. The absolute truth is not possible, so therefore the truth is not possible.

exactly that is what im trying to say

everything must be spoken of in relative terms due to the fact that the human mind is finite and in the infinite

knowledge is objective information given in a subjective fashion

The distinction between subjective and objective is that the subjective does not equal the objective, so I think therefore that it is wrong to assume that the subjective could be equivalent to the objective (a supposition upon which the truth is founded).

I think that subjective is taken as a subject meaning that it is learned a bout on a case by case basis and objective taken as an object which is the same every time. so in essence the subjective could and consistently dose equal the objective in my opinion.

yes but you are mistaken:
language = reality is what you are saying.
BUT reality is not made of words, therefore language does not equal reality.

Lets take a 'tree' (speech marks indicating language)
and a tree* (asterix indicating reality)

you are trying to say that 'tree'=tree* in saying that subjective=objective.
However, 'tree' is a word and not a tree*
if 'tree' is not tree* then you cannot say that 'tree'=tree*.

Understand?

I agree but in the trans personal sense reality can only be defined by words
I agree that words only have meaning but they are my only means of communicating my reality to you. if I could communicate direct reality to you we would have a perfect world

we should make a perfect world not with script but with creation.

I agree but their no way to make a perfect word to communicate with so a perfect world is not possible without some sort of immaculate being

P.S. if you want read my blog and comment I would appreciate your opinion and thoughts

I did not say we do not know that some proposition is false. I know that the proposition that La Paz is the capital of Ecuador is false. What I wrote is that we cannot know what is false; which is to say that if a proposition is false, we cannot know it (is true). So I cannot know that La Paz is the capital of Ecuador, because La Paz is not the capital of Ecuador. I hope you can see the distinction.

"No trees were destroyed" means neither that there were more or fewer (not "less") than before. And it implies neither, either. Why should it imply there are fewer?

Some fluent English speakers use the double negative as what linguists call, "an emphatic". We have to understand language in context.

I agree how can we know false if there is no truth
i make that conjecture due to my belief in a lack of first cause and the law of impermanence

Look the truth is only true if it is absolute.
No word will ever absolutely replicate reality.
Nothing is absolute, there is no nothing, so there is no absolute.
Therefore the truth is impossible.
Everything is false.

The word "tree" refers to the thing, tree. But, of course, words are not the things to which they refer. Trees have bark on them. But the word "tree" does not have bark on it.

And, some words, like "mermaid" or "unicorn" do not refer to anything because there are no mermaids, and there are no unicorns. So there are the words, "mermaid" and "unicorn", but no mermaids or unicorns. And, of course, many words are not nouns nor noun-phrases, so it is not their role to refer at all. For example, the word, "although" does not refer (it is not a referring term) and neither is the word, "if". Only nouns like "tree" can refer, as well as noun-phrases like "the tallest man in North Dakota".

This is why buddhist are against grasping at objects it just creates confusion

A noun is the most straight-forward type of word there is, so if a noun doesn't replicate reality how can 'although' replicate any sort of subjective/objective comparison? 'I am pedantic although I am correct' subjective versus objective, or qualify irrelevant to quantify. You could rephrase the statement in a variety of different ways, yet essentially the language will never bridge a gap between a subjective metamorphic concept and a supposedly absolute quantification. The pair cannot be joined by an '=' I suppose they can be joined by something representing unequal, but there we have another false statement; qualification although quantification is like 'one≠1'.