The Truth of Relativism Based On Mathematical Concepts

We have mathematically created 4d objects and have a 3d representation of their form as well as a 4d interpretation of how they might look if we could see 4 dimensions. The tesseract is one such object. It is a cube within a cube that moves through itself, growing and shrinking in size as the inner portion of the object becomes the outer portion of the object and then back to the inner. Here is a good 3d representation of the object:



I see a 3 dimensional cube that has potential to be seen from countless angles. Seeing the cube from all angles simultaneously requires an ability to see 4d objects.

As individuals, we see things a certain way and are convinced of the truth of our own perspective, as if it is absolute. Stepping out of the box, we can see that our view of the world is not absolute and is even contradictory to other views that are also believed, by the individuals having them, to be absolute.

Relativists, such as myself, claim that there is no absolute truth. That a man when viewed by an ant is large but when viewed by an elephant is small. Therefore, the man can be neither because one is contradictory to the other. But what if the man is all possibilities and each truth is true. This is what I'm beginning to understand.

The man must exist as at least a 4 dimensional object, maybe more. A 4 dimensional object is that which, in actuality, is many things simultaneously. The object holds all the information that can be accessed by any one individual's perspective to be seen uniquely by that individual. One individual may see it contradictory to another, and that's not just because the viewer is unique, it is because that which is seen actually is how it is seen.

We each see the world uniquely, but nothing is false. We are viewing 4 dimensional objects from 3 dimensional perspectives. The objects themselves are all possible things so that they may be viewed from all possible angles.

I never really understood how higher dimensions work. I could watch that tesseract animation all day though!

I wonder if something that lives in a 4d world can have 3d objects, we do not have 2d objects after all.

Your post reminded me of a video that pooped up the other day, don't you love serendipity!

It looks like ATS got a face lift since I was here last and I can't find the YouTube video button: youtu.be... The video makes a better argument, but I am a sucker for white boards.

reply to post by smithjustinb


That was explained very well. However, how do people who are viewing the world from different places get on the same page? There should at least be viewing platforms where people can congregate. This could be why the older pantheons were polytheistic.

There could be planned consequences of relativism - divided people are easier to conquer, for example, and at the mercy of powerful overlords. When you have no social support system and are treated unfairly, you have no recourse. When unfair treatment is relative, you don't either.

I don't contest your original claim. It is kind of a Pandora's box.

reply to post by smithjustinb

The man must exist as at least a 4 dimensional object, maybe more. A 4 dimensional object is that which, in actuality, is many things simultaneously. The object holds all the information that can be accessed by any one individual's perspective to be seen uniquely by that individual. One individual may see it contradictory to another, and that's not just because the viewer is unique, it is because that which is seen actually is how it is seen.

When it comes to multiverse theory and quantum mechanics I have considered that these are expressions in equation of the effect of dimension upon space/time and its potentials, with respect to energy, which is what matter is. Consider the issue of multiverse theory in regard to the electron cloud. Each doppelganger an expression that could be related to as a facet in a spherical diamond.

Now add to that, the expression of every doppelganger present in each perspective of Multiple Universe's within each Facet/Frame (which, is addressed in Multiverse theory).

In context what about the matter of Electron Migration in the referent of Quantum Mechanics that in conservative science, presents that individual electrons, not attached to atoms, can travel from future to past like knife through butter.


To be clear Multiverse theory resulted from problems in Chemistry.

And in that context a search of the Electron Cloud and Chemistry will make that apparent.

Any thoughts

reply to post by smithjustinb


Nothing is false is obviously balderdash. And using mathematics to prove the "relativism" of things is a contradiction in terms. Mathematics is a strict procedure with strict rules and conclusions. 1 + 1 is incontestably 2.

Similarly, there are things in human social reality which are simply true. Being kind and compassionate, that is, being open and receptive to other minds, is good. When two minds do it together, an altogether different quality emerges, whether that be called flow, or presence, or harmonizing.

This is a simple fact of human social relations.

Some things are true, other things are false. We discover truth and falsehood through first hand experience, using empirical methods of observation, and applying concepts like probability.

I can't say for certain that tomorrow the sun will rise, but I am very very sure, based on prior sunrises, that tomorrow the sun will rise. Induction may not yield certainties the way deductions do, but they yield probabilities that are just as good.

Justinb, don't confuse yourself by trying to find the truth via reason. Some things are just known through intuition. Human beings come to "knowing" things in this way in just about everything we do. Someone with lesions to their right cingulate cortex is incapable of making decisions. They go round and round in discursive reasoning, weighing one concept against another, never able to come to a conclusion because ultimately "emotion" is what decides, and the cortical area which gives "partiality" to cognitive processes isn't working in a brain like this.

This essentially means that at are very heart of hearts, human beings are moral creatures. We rely on value in making our decisions. And since whats of greatest value - what benefits all equally - is recognized by the majority of minds, a personal subjective experience of value becomes something with objective force: a recognized system of morals.

This system worldwide is phrased the same way as the golden rule: don't to other people what you wouldn't want done to you.

This is so bloody incontrovertible, so obvious, such a basic factor in peaceful social relations that it's quite unfortunate that so many people can fail to recognize it's intuitive brilliance. To live a life that does not conform to this truth is to separate yourself from the mass of mankind, to act as if there isn't another mind affected by your actions; to essentially live "mindlessly", following personal goals, while other selves suffer from your failure to attend to the reverberatory effects of your behavior.

Can there be a deeper way of being in this world? No. Living in such a way where the other person is embodied in your awareness, is a factor in how you act, is living at a level above egoistic human relations where the "I" of my rigid, personal opinion fails to take into account the other minds unique, contextual circumstances, which have led him to a different view. When two minds, or a group of minds, relate with one another at this level, a "transcendent" perspective emerges, a middle ground where views are acknowledged and harmoniously integrated.

Truth exists in this world. It is just not easy to see when you have a plank in your eye, to quote the gospel.

Astrocyte
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

Nothing is false is obviously balderdash.

In terms of quality, its not. For example, the taste of broccoli. Some say broccoli is good. Others say its not. Who's wrong? Neither. The broccoli is made to be good and bad. It is the trait of the broccoli itself to be good and bad simultaneously.

This reminds me of the tesseract. How it is many potentials in one definite object.

reply to post by Astrocyte


In a right triangle a^2+b^2=c^2

Which is derived from mathematical axioms such as 1+1=2

Einstein used this to find the theory of RELATIVITY

reply to post by smithjustinb


Greetings, relativist.

Would you like to be know whether something stated is true or false?

Likewise, would you like to know whether some action is right or wrong?

And finally, can you tell us how to go through life without knowing these things?

I like the idea that we "discover" truth, as if we turned over a rock and there it is. It's cute, but perhaps more naive. Of course, no such nonsense has ever happened in the history of the universe.

Truth and falsity are only relative to the propositions that assert them. More poetically, truth is metaphor. Knowledge, and thus truth, is a human affair and not a universal one. Fact is, truth is only found in our discourse and dialectic, and nowhere else. Saying that we "discover" truth, or that math shows us truth absolutely, reeks of theology and a superstition, and takes knowledge out of man's hands.

In the same way we can see a 2D shadow of a 3D object.
Higher dimensional objects can be viewed as their 3D or (n-1)d "shadows"
There are certain plant decoctions that can wire up (n)D visualization.

Sometimes its a good idea to look at the issues from a different point of view.

The mathematical objects that live on the sphere in four dimensional space -- the hypersphere -- are both beautiful and interesting. The four dimensional sphere is a unique object, with properties both similar to and surprisingly different from those of our ordinary sphere. Similarly to the case in three dimensions, there is a family of Platonic and Archimedean solids that can be viewed on the four dimensional sphere. These shapes can be seen to have a structure that is comfortingly analogous to that of the Platonic solids we know and love. However, there are some properties of the four dimensional sphere that are startlingly different. In contrast to the ordinary sphere, it is possible to "comb the hair" on the four dimensional sphere. That is to say, there is a continous one-dimensional flow that maps this space to itself. This is a deep property that gives this space important and unique physical characteristics. This flow is made up of a family of circles, each of which link every other one exactly once. Images which show off this property can be strikingly beautiful. These images can also be used to explain important ideas in physics and mathematics, but this essay concentrates on their aesthetic appeal and possibilities.

Source

This will take 1:44 hrs. to review but it has everything to do with the topic.

Astyanax

And finally, can you tell us how to go through life without knowing these things?

Choose to.

darkbake
reply to post by smithjustinb

 

That was explained very well. However, how do people who are viewing the world from different places get on the same page? There should at least be viewing platforms where people can congregate. This could be why the older pantheons were polytheistic.

There could be planned consequences of relativism - divided people are easier to conquer, for example, and at the mercy of powerful overlords. When you have no social support system and are treated unfairly, you have no recourse. When unfair treatment is relative, you don't either.

I don't contest your original claim. It is kind of a Pandora's box.

edit on 09amWed, 09 Apr 2014 03:09:22 -0500kbamkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)

I think relativism gives power to each individual to determine what it is he/ she wants and then gives that person the mental freedom to obtain it. You have your own recourse. I also think it helps us get on the same page. When you understand that other people are as convinced of their viewpoint as you are, it allows you a greater ability to put your own viewpoint aside to consider the others. You quit saying, "you're wrong", and therefore don't automatically dismiss the entirety of the other's viewpoint. Instead, you are more open-minded.

reply to post by smithjustinb


I agree with you and I think it is very important.

A different tangent to that, however - I think that understanding laws and the nature of concrete reality allows someone to more easily obtain their desires. I think that religion, by muddling the mixture with false laws, inhibits people's abilities to obtain positive desires for themselves and others. I am certain of this.

The last thing we as a society need is a monotheistic way of looking at things that is patently false.

reply to post by darkbake


"The last thing we as a society need is a monotheistic way of looking at things that is patently false."

The idea of one God actually relates well to the idea of one point of view that incorporates all others.

Akin perhaps to that each of us is a part of some puzzle.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by smithjustinb


But were not assessing the value of broccoli at just one level (how it tastes), but can also recognize, through logic, that broccoli is good for you, so if you care about your health, it's in your interest to eat it.

Understanding human social dynamics - and the fact of our unconscious unity, in that our Selves are formed in the process of relating, and so we are all exquisitely sensitive to the emotional states of others - can be understood and embodied in the awareness of every mind.

One could even say that recognizing and experiencing the unity of self and other naturally produces a feeling of sympathy and concern for other selves. Since the ultimate condition of our experience is an unconscious, mental unity, reason (and VALUE!) dictates that the views of the egoic, and blinded self, which chooses to see things in inaccurate and biased ways, which refuses to look inwards on itself to probe the reasons for it's behaviors (why do I want to feel apart? why am I choosing beliefs that put myself at odds with other selves?), be ignored, and the awareness, and peacefulness, of the enlightened self - the self that has taken in knowledge of human relations (cognitively, and affectively) - can be nurtured and cultivated, so that it becomes the new way of being, both within the biology of the brain and body, as well as the mind.

reply to post by Aphorism

Knowledge, and thus truth, is a human affair and not a universal one. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why the epistemological limitation? Why is the universe only responsible for physical conditions, and not the mental conditions which arise from it's most remarkable physical organism? Why should our perception of truth be treated as something extraneous to universal phenomenology? THAT sounds like nonsense to me.

That truth can even be discovered in the physical domain - in the sense that very accurate language (or metaphor, as if that somehow makes the process invalid) can describe physical processes in a scientific manner. No one denies the fact of gravity. Or that light is made up of different wave lengths. If the universe established such facts in the physical domain, I find it untenable to draw a line between that and the mental experiences of being human. As I mentioned in my post before, and my last one, truth in human social relations, that is, a Golden rule morality, can be justified on purely empirical grounds. So long as we define the values we want at the start - peace, wellbeing, economic security etc - if we simply honor these values, we can bring them from the realm of intention into actualization.

But of course, no doubt, you are now thinking "if we simply honour, my ass". And I agree. When things are attended to as a "simple fact" sort of way, that is, in Bubers "I-It" sort of way, then no doubt the operation is doomed from the start. This I-It sort of relating does not yield any insight into the nature of the act of relating. It is completely blind, and so, doomed to failure - to contention, to egotistical prodding, to blame, etc.

The key is how we attend to the world. Where are we, in our thoughts? What are we relating to within our minds? If the Self connects with other selves in terms of the reality of the matter - that two, unique minds are connecting - and if emotional dynamics, and simple considerations are taken, then it becomes possible to resonate with others, to honor their vulnerabilities, to amplify states of pleasure and joy, and be conscious of probable reasons for responses. If, in other words, you psychically imagine yourself on the other end, as the person who is speaking to you, which in effect amounts to two perspectives being taken and considered at once (yours and theirs), then you will be able to not only establish, but deeply ingrain within your brain, an awareness of mind that responds to situations, instead of reacts to situations according to unconscious programming (based upon previous memories and their association to external stimuli).

This no doubt explains why the golden rule has appeared in every developed culture the world over. It is a position that has been arrived at at different times by different peoples. It is a truth of human social relations.

reply to post by Astrocyte


Mind You, to quote Marley "I know some ti-imes, you wanna let go oo, I know some ti-imes, you wanna let gooooo"....Everyone knows that feeling. We do have a little rascal within us. But the hallmark of a mature mind is to inhibit this mindless part within us, the part that simply doesn't want to care about other selves, and cultivate our higher, responsible (which means to RESPOND to truths) awareness, so that we may improve our conditions, increase joy, wellbeing and happiness for more and more people.

This is wisdom. The word wisdom simply means this. You don't need to be particularly intelligent. You just need to be emotionally centred: oriented towards life in the right way.

reply to post by smithjustinb


You seem to be trying to find a novel way to describe a holographic universe theory.

I have often wondered if some genius in the history of man, long forgotten (or maybe not), saw the shapes that made up reality around them, and discerned the holographic form of the "universal projector" (for lack of a better term, i inserted a cheap metaphor). Pythagoras....he seems like a possible candidate to at least begin unvraveling the mystery.. And still his work was based on that of others before him. A brilliant mind that found material meant for a brilliant mind.

What happens to such people today?