One of the most important foundations of sciences is the notion of knowledge. More generally, the knowledge is the first prism of science with which study deals with, in order to lead to it’s interpretations. In this manner, we can see that there is a ratio with the target in the field of strategy. Both the knowledge and the goals, at least traditionally, are the principals of a theory and somehow do not belong to it. The evolution of the theory is a later phase and does not convert the original knowledge, although it’s interpretation is indeed different. This idea, however, is real?
First of all, we should state that we understand only what we can see and above all we see only what we understand. The same object not only can be interpreted differently, but it’s in fact different when looked upon by different people: the knowledge about the object depends upon the level of the researcher. Looking at the same formula we are not seeing the same things. And in this notion , we realize the non-objectiveness of knowledge. And there is a correlation with the term theory. What I assume is what I interpert. Therefore, knowledge is a complex manufacturing component of interpretations. Because there is a systematic organizing of the total. And in this totality our comprehension also belongs because it is formed with the development of knowledge. Although initially our knowledge is algorithmic, at the end of the process it can become whole or even wholistic, if we understand the essence of the structure we study.

The notion of knowledge is not chronically unchangeable , it is totally relative.
The same phenomenon does not only comprise of a single knowledge, but of a body of knowledge. The original notion of knowledge, the traditional, is only a single part of that body. While the structure is more deeply hidden.

One of the most common and simple knowledges is light. Everyone knows it. But who understands it ? We all know the historic development of its meaning from antiquity to the quantum theory and the theory of relativity.
And we can all imagine that in the future with the great unification of forces, the notion of light will evolve.
The light remains the same, but not so our relative knowledge . The same occurs in the case of the mass and more generally the gravity .
Every new theory develops our point of view in a revolutionary way. Because the development of science coincides with the revision of knowledge.
The notion of knowledge shows therefore, that the latter, does not form something absolute. It is only a theoretical case which has no direct relationship with objectivity but with information.
The information itself is the result of our mental capacity, it has a knowledgeable base. Because it derives from the conclusions we make. In this notion, we see that information is only an indication and it’s extensions are all of our conclusions.

But as Einstein said , there is no method that leads from experiment to theory. And here we realize the contribution of creativity which is the only one able to investigate the future of the notion of knowledge. Finally, we must realize the simplicity of the original notion of knowledge in sciences and to accept the contribution in it’s terminology not only of our mental capability, but also the creativity of our thinking. We belong to the world and the world belongs to our thinking. Our knowledge is our gnostic world view. .