Well, within the context of a philosophical discussion, the meaning of "know" has nothing to do with truth — LuckyR

That's one opinion of many, and the differing opinions are the point of the example and question posed from it.

The example I described is the Gettier Problem which attempts to point out truths dicey relationship with the definition of knowledge.

The more traditional view (Called the Tripartite theory I believe), is actually that truth is one of the three things necessary for knowledge.

The view you've described (after a quick google), seems to be something closer to Reliabilism, which doesn't tie truth to knowledge, and is more about the processes by which one comes to their belief. But there are others too, or it might be something different.

But all are debatable, which is the point of the Gettier Problem example.

That being said, my comment and example was only in reference to something @RogueAI said, which was a bit of a digression from @vanzhandz initial post regarding utilising inference to consider high level realities.

I disagree. In the first instance Jenny was told by Dan that he owned the blue Mazda he showed her. She believed what he told her (likely for good reason), and as luck would have it, her belief happened to be true. But she didn't have enough information to know that he owned the car. — LuckyR

I think you actually agree with the point of the example.

For this example we merely take the first situation as definitive knowledge for convenience, not because it is, but because it's merely a setup to demonstrate the point with the second situation. (If it helps, you can assume she was there when he purchased it and also there when the salesman was hired and given the license to sell it, and so one and so forth).

By contrast, then, the second situation demonstrates that Jenny doesn't have enough information to know it was still a Blue Mazda, even though she is correct.

That's the starting point, but by extension, as you pointed out, the overall point is that we cannot know anything definitively ever. Thus she doesn't know he owns the car in the first place, even though she thinks she does and she is correct.

It just starts with a flagpole for demonstration purposes.

Given all of that, it's then relevant to ask what we mean by "true" when we say that "Jenny knows something" is true. Or if we can say it at all.

With that being the case, in what reality does this infinite process of subjective realities creating subjective realities take place? And if the process of infinite creation is what makes up reality as a whole, then can’t that infinite process be called the “base reality.” — vanzhandz

I wanna step away from the subjective reality creating subjective reality thing, I think it's a distraction from your topic.

But let's take the idea of infinite regression in a different way.

Consider that we might live in a simulation. The reality that created the simulation could itself be a simulation of a 3rd reality, and so on and so forth. They're all still objective realities (in which we all have our own subjective experiences), but they're still infinite as you describe above.

Now, as you described above, if it is in fact infinite, "can't that infinite process be called the "base reality?"... I think it could, but I think "base reality" is now taking on a slightly skewed meaning to what you described in your original post.

"Infinite regression" is not a dimension, or plane, or space, or artifact (or reality), it is a concept or process. While I don't (typo) do understand calling it the "Base Reality" if it were the case, I think it's being casual with language. What if I said "We're born, we live, we die, and we never know any more than that... that's the base reality"

To me they are both concepts that (for the purpose of this argument) are true and I can casually use the term base reality and everyone will know what I mean.

But my feeling is that if it were an infinite regression in terms of realities, it would be more linguistically honest to say "There is no base reality".

I feel like you'd probably agree with that aspect, as it's not what you originally intended.
Thoughts?

How can Jenny or anyone else know Jenny's psychological state of mind? Why can't knowledge be scientific knowledge learned from a book? — magritte

Knowledge can be learned from a book, and with topics that are verifiable, then you can say "I know this" having read it in a book, and it can also be verified that what you know is correct. And in this situation we don't have to deal with any ambiguity in knowledges relationship to truth.

That's different though, to learning about "base reality" in a book (Or at all). As this might be unverifiable as @vanzhandz suggests. So you can still call it knowledge - provided you're comfortable with knowledge being simply "information you are aware of" rather than "information you are aware of that is true".

My comment was made without quote, so for reference, it was in regard to @RogueAI's comment:
Suppose reality is as materialists claim it is. Wouldn't they then have knowledge of "base reality"?

This reminds me of Theseus paradox, more specifically, an example given by the philosopher Daniel Gilbert (I think).

If Dan shows Jenny his blue Mazda, and then Jenny is asked if she knows what car Dan owns, and she says "Yes, I know, a blue Mazda". That's one thing.

But consider that 2 weeks goes by, Dan get's in an accident and total's his Mazda.
He then goes out and buys another blue Mazda.

Jenny knows nothing of this, but later, she is asked if she knows what car Dan owns. She says "Yes, I know, he owns a blue Mazda".

The statement "He owns a blue Mazda" is true, but is the statement "Yes, I know" true?

This process of change took place within some form of reality, whether I am capable of seeing that reality or not. If there were no base reality in which my consciousness could move from non-existence to existence then could it have happened at all? — vanzhandz

Perhaps it could be argued that the process of change that brought about your subjective reality occurred in another's subjective reality.

This, however, might imply the existence of multiple versions of you seeing as your inception was witness-able subjectively by multiple parties.