Experience is certainty. Abstraction is uncertainty.
There are two things you can do with experience, 1) feel it, which is the fundamental ground of immaterial ego consciousness sentience, and 2) abstract it which is physical brain work.
?
Artificial intelligence (AI) is equivalent to physical brain work, but instead of a physical brain it uses very powerful physical computers with very fast information processing units. AI is not alive, not conscious and not sentient.
?
Experience is tautological certainty. Raw unfiltered experience is necessarily exactly, only and always itself. Ontology, literally existence, is tautological certainty. That which ontologically exists has no intrinsic meaning, rather any-thing that actually exists, is necessarily exactly, only and always itself.
?
Epistemology, literally information about that which exists, adds meaning onto that which exists, for example, “is the information we have about some physical thing true or false?” That which physically exists, for instance an actual electron has no intrinsic true or false in it. That which physically exists has no intrinsic meaning.
?
Epistemology is always uncertainty; explanations, descriptions, names, definitions always introduce uncertainty to physical existence because abstraction is always at least one and commonly many cognitive logical levels removed from the physical objects being described.
?
Cognitive abstraction virtually always introduces errors of interpretation, hence the necessary uncertainty of epistemology. For example, one logical level of cognitive abstraction is choice of language, say English or choice of mathematics, say Peano Arithmetic, Euclidean geometry, infinitesimal calculus, sets, etc. The next logical level is choice of words or mathematical symbols, each of which exists with multiple meanings. Another logical level is the medium with which to present the information, for instance spoken words, handwritten words, keystroke encoded words, audio, video, music, singing, dance, drawing, painting, poetry, prose, etc. The next logical level is that a receiver of the message must decode, interpret and bestow meaning upon the message, perhaps including translating it from the original language or mathematics into a different language or mathematics, or from language into mathematics or from mathematics into language. It is virtually certain that such transformations introduce errors, in other words the interpretation of meaning bestowed upon the message by the receiver is not the meaning intended by the sender of the message. Every time the message is passed along to additional receivers, additional errors almost certainly occur.
?
With my former students I used a simple exercise to illustrate the necessary uncertainty of cognitive abstraction. I wrote a very simple message on a sheet of paper and instructed the first person to verbally pass the message to the next person. There were perhaps fifteen people in the line. The message was passed verbally so only the next person could hear. Each person passed the message until it arrived at the last person in the line. That person would then write the message on a sheet of paper, and we would compare it with the original message. It was always hilariously funny how different the two messages were.
?
The great power of natural a priori axioms is that the message is stripped down to information so fundamentally simple and intuitively obvious that no additional explanation or proof is either helpful or necessary. That makes natural a priori axioms justified knowledge. Natural a priori axioms are received directly into immaterial ego consciousness as revelations (for instance by epiphany). They come as close to truth perfection as is possible for cognitive abstraction knowledge to be. In fact, the set of natural a priori axioms are the ground from all epistemology (knowledge about physical existence). Natural a priori axioms are necessarily true in every possible universe, if they are stated accurately. If they are not stated accurately, they are not natural a priori axioms. Misstating a natural a priori axiom is the common error of epistemology but does not defeat the truth value of the revelation experience, which is tautologically true.
?
Revelation is in fact a sentient feeling experience, not a cognitive abstraction. As is true of all experience certainty, revelation is certainty, but interpretation and explanation of it are always epistemological uncertainty. The uncertainty of epistemology is as certain as the tautological certainty of experience. Revelation is an instance of ego consciousness illumination enlightenment sentient feeling experience knowledge certainty (SFEKC).