@RogueAI

Good question.

In my perspective, I distinguish between two forms of knowledge: static and dynamic. Static knowledge is timeless and unchanging; dynamic knowledge, on the other hand, is tied to time and subject to transformation.

Take mathematics: 2 + 2 necessarily equals 4—within the system of rules we’ve established. This is a form of static knowledge. With concepts like H₂O, things become more complex. H₂O is also a clearly defined concept, rooted in scientific laws and symbolic notation—axiomatic in structure, much like mathematical expressions. It offers us a way to establish clear boundaries in how we understand the world.

However, while these concepts connect us to reality, they don’t guarantee absolute certainty. Our perception of reality is not absolute—there’s no one-to-one mapping between what we think we know and what actually is. Unexpected influences—external radiation, atomic anomalies, minor variations—can alter outcomes in ways we didn’t account for. So while concepts like H₂O help us form reliable predictions, those predictions are not necessities. They are probable, not guaranteed.

To illustrate this further: imagine you leave a bucket of water outside your house. Will it still be wet tomorrow? Not necessarily. A sudden cold front from the Arctic could freeze it overnight. Unlikely, perhaps—but not impossible. Likewise, the water might slowly evaporate. So even a seemingly stable property like “wetness” can fluctuate over time.

And what we perceive is only the surface. On a microscopic level, even in a group of ten H₂O molecules, countless processes unfold: minor radiation, electron shifts, subtle energy exchanges—all beyond our direct perception. These processes are real, even if we aren’t aware of them.

Even objects we regard as extremely stable are not exempt from change. Take the International Prototype Kilogram: a precisely protected object, stored in a secure vault, isolated from external influences. And yet, over time, it has measurably lost mass. No matter how carefully we preserve something, the world continues to move around—and within—it.

This brings us to a deeper point: statements about the future are always contingent. Our concepts give us frameworks to imagine what might come, but the future itself is not bound by those frameworks. Our assumption that things are as we perceive them—that the world is stable and consistent—is an illusion. The world is in flux, and so are we. We recognize ourselves from moment to moment, yet in truth, we are always in a process of becoming.