That gets to be an ontological question as well as epistemologic. I don't agree that one can make the inductive leap that you make and call it a law of knowledge.
Knowledge is relational and I believe it may be shown that relationships and the knowledge involved in them run beyond what we understand as the physical functioning of the brain.
But, thank you for spelling out your own belief about knowledge.
Not accurate at all. I don't rely on induction hardly at all, only in specific cases. In this case I am relying almost totally on deduction. But, granting your point, if you reject the argument, then the word "believe" has no meaning. If you don't exist, there is no one to "believe" anything (ontology). And if you don't have an epistemology, then you don't "know" anything, including what you "believe."
Knowledge is relational
This statement is an absolute, which is dependent upon "Epistemology." So, if what you say is true, then this statement is invalid, since all knowledge is "relational" and the knowledge about "Knowledge is relational" is also relational. Your premise refutes itself.
I believe it may be shown that relationships and the knowledge involved in them run beyond what we understand as the physical functioning of the brain.
I don't care what you "believe." I especially don't want public policy being instituted according to what you "believe." And it isn't possible to demonstrate that anything you understand "runs beyond the physical functioning of the brain." It is not possible to demonstrate that any thought is "beyond the physical funtioning of the brain" - and for you, with your physical brain, to think it.
You have no right to demand that the rest of us live by what you "believe." Especially since none of this can be demonstrated to be "true."
But, thank you for spelling out your own belief about knowledge.
And thank you for spelling out what you don't.