It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can we know objective truth?

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 02:19 AM
link   
a reply to: namelesss




It is an error to attempt to discern between 'object' and 'subject'! Quantum mechanics has demonstrated that the 'subject' (observer) and object (observed) are inseparable, One! That any 'debate' regarding the distinction between the two is obsolete thought, beliefs, ignorance.



I fail to see how super-positioning and the collapse of the wave function upon measurement shows that the subject and the object are inseparable. I think you are taking a generalized dumbed down version of quantum mechanics and attempting to twist it into this irrational belief of yours.




To speak is to lie!


Then your whole post is a lie so why should we care?





I am really not confused at all, and perfectly able to rationally, logically,philosophically/scientifically support my theories and observations. Rather than argue and call me crazy, be bold enough to make an atte,pt to at least understand what I am saying, before automatically gainsaying. I am well aware of what is 'obvious' to the masses.


Nothing about the idea.




"All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." -


Except in order for this sentence to be something we should care about it would need to be objectively true. Why dont you take a moment and tell me what you think subjective and objective mean?




posted on Jun, 18 2016 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

He is giving up on objective truth since he cannot pinpoint it and be an objective observer and therefore all need to be equally true/false.




"All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." -


This is self deceit. You can have one statement that includes all information about everything even if we do not know it. You can even make a objective truthful statement that is true regardless of the nature of things since it does not specify "what is".

I am adding your Book of Fudd since it is part of your idea world.



The First Law of Soul Dynamics; "For every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!" - Book of Fudd "The complete Universe (Reality/Truth/God/'Self!'/Tao/Brahman... or any feature herein...) can be defined/described as the synchronous sum-total of all Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd ALL INCLUSIVE!!!


A oneness can exists that knows the objective reality that do not have to be the sum of all views. If one souls knows 1+1=2 and every one else say 1+1=9 then one souls is right and everyone else in that cluster is wrong. If all souls think 1+1 is not equal to 2 then the sum of perspectives are not correct.



"The fundamental idea of Buddhism is to pass beyond the world of opposites, a world built up by intellectual distinctions and emotional defilement." - D.T. Suzuki (The Essence of Buddhism)


Or transforming the subjective views to more objective views that can see the dualities for what they are and navigate the realm of subjective truths questioning both the self and others views. A death to false subjective views causing an ego transformation to another state of thinking and questioning. Maybe even play around with the energetic body states and go out of body experiencing the oneness.

The one who can measure is more objectively aware of what is, than the one who choose to blind themselves to simplifications/subjective idols rejecting measurement.
edit on 18-6-2016 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Sometimes trying to convince someone of something can be really fruitless (especially if someone 'allows their schooling to interfere with their education', paraphrasing Mark Twain):

Pardon any sarcasm and cynicism below:
You can go pray at the altar of agnosticism and Bishop Berkeley's immaterialism all you want, it's not going to change the reality/fact/truth/certainty that 2+2=4. No matter what else it might be at the same time as well. Oh, and Schrödinger was actually trying to show how ridiculous the Copenhagen (blind) assumptions* were by bringing up his paradox/contradiction/nonsense (these are synonyms) concerning the cat. Yes, this stuff is all related but not going into detail anymore.
* = called the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics ("blind" is referring to the arguments from ignorance I've heard concerning this topic, and the "assumptions" are only referring to those actual assumptions put forth by "the Copenhagen interpretation", not the facts that are also discussed and 'interpreted'.)

For those using the terminology "objective truth", may I suggest giving the term "truth" and "truths" a try, there's only 1 type anyway. If someone believes something to be true that is actually not true (by some people sometimes referred to as relative or subjective truth), than it isn't true or a truth/reality/fact/certainty and the word "truth" does not apply in any way (other than maybe mentioning that someone erronuously believes something to be true, it to be a truth/fact/certainty/reality). Same counts for the term "intelligent design". Too much leeway for those trying to capitalize on the ambiguity of language if you almost go along like that.

A similar situation is going on with the word "absolute" and the term "absolute truth". The word "absolute" is already a synonym for "true/certain/factual/conclusive (adjective: correct, without error). And for those who have heard the philosophy that comes in many variations that 'science does not deal with absolutes'...well, I'd like to remind you that the word "science" comes from the Latin "scientia" which means "knowledge". Essentially, knowledge means familiarity with facts/realities/certainties/truths acquired by personal experience, observation, or study*. Or in other words, a familiarity with that which is factual/true/absolute/certain/etc. So the previously mentioned philosophy is a bit of a silly attempt to promote and conflate the philosophy of agnosticism with the word "science" or the concept of "the scientific method".

* = And that's where inductive reasoning comes into play.
edit on 19-6-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 02:55 AM
link   
And agnosticism in turn is conducive for selling erronuous philosophies/ideas and myths/false stories as science/knowledge (whichever synonym is preferred, new age gurus for example would use the term "science" a bit less but still present their erronuous ideas and speculations or imaginations as if they're worth listening to in terms of getting an accurate or enlightened view of reality, as if it's enlightened knowledge even though they might not bother with spelling that out). The bible uses the phrase "falsely called knowledge".

To clarify my sentence that starts with "If someone believes something to be true..." and mentions the terms relative truth(s) or subjective truth(s) in a way that a person may misinterpret what I meant (cause I didn't specify everything such as the situation where someone believes something to be true that is actually true, i.e. that person is correct about it). Here's some stuff I quoted in the other thread about Pontius Pilatus' cynical question: "What is Truth?"

Pilate, of course, was not really seeking the truth. If anything, his question revealed his skeptical or cynical attitude. Apparently, to Pilate truth was whatever a person might choose or was taught to believe; there was really no way to determine what is truth. Many today feel the same way.
...
Perhaps Pilate viewed truth as too elusive to grasp.
...
This disdainful attitude toward truth is shared by many today, including religious leaders, educators, and politicians. They hold that truth...is not absolute but relative and ever changing.

Short version and mixing different sources that I already linked in that thread.

edit on 20-6-2016 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: namelesss




It is an error to attempt to discern between 'object' and 'subject'! Quantum mechanics has demonstrated that the 'subject' (observer) and object (observed) are inseparable, One! That any 'debate' regarding the distinction between the two is obsolete thought, beliefs, ignorance.

I fail to see

I know...




To speak is to lie!

Then your whole post is a lie so why should we care?


I'll hardly waste the time to try to raise you to some understanding of Lao Tsu, its obviously over your head.
I couldn't care less what you 'care' about, I offer honest truth. Food for thoughtful discussion.
Yes, it hurts.
If you don't like the peaches...



"All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense." -



Except in order for this sentence to be something we should care about it would need to be objectively true.

Oh such absolute nonsense!
So, 'caring' being a thing of the ego, vanity, emotionally charged, needs to 'believe' that the 'object' of it's attention is some Universal truth in order to validate his beliefs?
You seem under the illusion that man is a rational, logical creature.
That is obviously untrue.
Well, of everyone but you, of course. *__-

And how would 'you' ever 'measure' that something is 'objectively true'?
Where do 'you' draw the line between subject and object?
Science certainly cannot, has not to date, anyway!
Science cannot find the exact place where one thing stops and another begins.
Neither can philosophy.
But, it seems that 'you' can.


Why dont you take a moment and tell me what you think subjective and objective mean?

I have found that when 'challenged', it is by people with their hands firmly over their ears.
I am telling you that the terms are obsolete and meaningless!
As long as you live in your vanity, there will always be the schizophrenic (fragmenting that which is One! Omni-!); "you AND God!"
'Subject' and 'object'.
The unconditional Love that Jesus taught is Universal, and to find/become that Love One becomes Universal, One with God.
One Omni- Self!

"As I Am, so can you be!" - Jesus

"God cannot know himself without me." - Meister Eckhart

"The eye by which I see God is the same as the eye by which God sees me. My eye and God's eye are one and the same." - Meister Eckhart
One and the same!

"All things are simply God to thee who seest only God in all things. Like one who looks long at the sun, he encounters the sun in whatever he afterwards looks at. If this is lacking, this looking for and seeing God in all and sundry, then thou lackest this birth." - Meister Eckhart

"What a man loves, he is. If he loves a stone he is that stone, if he loves a person he is that person, if he loves God - nay, I durst not say more; were I to say, he is God, he might stone me. I do but teach you the scriptures." - Meister Eckhart

The false notions of all such dualistic distinctions vanish in the healthy inclusive Light of unconditional Love!
Such is the 'Freedom' of Truth.







edit on 20-6-2016 by namelesss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: namelesss



I'll hardly waste the time to try to raise you to some understanding of Lao Tsu, its obviously over your head.


If you where logically explaining and understood Lao Tsu and went thru all the reasoning instead of saying everyone else is small minded then you might teach something and make a logical connection. But I have a feeling you are more interested in disagreeing with everyone calling them idiots instead of really looking at the idea world you are sending out on all frequencies.



I have found that when 'challenged', it is by people with their hands firmly over their ears.


I agree and see that clearly.




The unconditional Love that Jesus taught is Universal, and to find/become that Love One becomes Universal, One with God. One Omni- Self!

Yes Oneness with something more is possible. But when connecting to one thing one will reject another connection.

Luke 14


25Now large crowds were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them, 26"If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple. 27"Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple 28"For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it?




"The eye by which I see God is the same as the eye by which God sees me. My eye and God's eye are one and the same." - Meister Eckhart


I would not make that mistake thinking that a being able to measure all existence in real time have the same senses as me trapped in a biological body. I do not have the diagnostic tools to even measure this body fully.



new topics

top topics
 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join