Is There a Fail-safe? A Way to Know If You're Wrong?

reply to post by NorEaster

Here's my understanding anyways:

I'm not sure there is a fail-safe. There is no omniscient World Text of Answers (The Big Fact) we can compare with our findings. This, of course, is also an assumption, because there is no World Text of Answers to let me know that there is no World Text of Answers—a paradox. Since nothing is conceivably or observably omniscient, the idea of some absolute truth or absolute certainty is also a paradox. Therefore, since paradoxes have no place in reality, we should excuse the idea of absolute truth from our minds and work with what's available to us. We can only do our best to describe truth, not know it.

The Jourdain paradox

Suppose there is a card with statements printed on both sides:

Front: The sentence on the other side of this card is TRUE.
Back: The sentence on the other side of this card is FALSE.

The Jourdain Paradox illustrates what is a closed system (circular reference), which means that because both statements are concerned only with the statement on other side of the card (the system), we will be left infinitely flipping the card over but never get anywhere in regards to truth. This makes truth or falsity irrelevant.

The dictionary is an example of this closed system. When a dictionary defines a word, it must refer to other words in the dictionary to make any sense. Despite the dictionary's usefulness, it has nothing outside of itself that it can refer to. If we were to limit ourselves only to the dictionary for our truths, we would be stuck in the closed loop of the dictionary.

Closed systems, such as theological metaphysics or abstract idealism have no room for growth, only further perversion of their own system to remain coherent.

To open the system, we must find different points of reference. The best reference point that I've found to help elucidate and validate any proposition is human experience—empiricism. Every paradigm shift involves a reference to human experience.

Here's an Open version of the Jourdain Paradox (thus, no longer a paradox):

Suppose there is a card with statements printed on both sides:

Front: The sentence on the other side of this card is TRUE.
Back: Jupiter is the largest planet in the solar system.

This gets us out of the circular reference, leading us to refer to human experience, sensual observation, mathematical calculation, and many other methods through which we experience and describe the world, to validate the truth of that entire card. Once we determine whether the card is true or false, we can move on to the next card.

An open system such as Newtonian laws of motion has room for growth and allows itself to evolve into something more coherent and better explained, ie. special relativity.


What is my point?

I would just make sure to do whatever we can to avoid the closed system: refer to the concrete over the abstract; refer to the particular over the universal; do not rely on only ideas and notions, but ideas with experiential connections within the context of reality; do not rely strictly on one way of discovering truth (ie. pure mathematics, pure empiricism, pure semantics, pure theology); appeal to experience; remove fallacies and paradoxes; define axioms and assumptions; rhetorically refine our arguments; do not doubt where it is unnecessary (ie. denying reality altogether). This not only helps us refine the general idea for the palpability of our audience, but leads us closer to discovering "truth" ourselves.

In the end, every paradigm shift involves the convincing of a particular audience with the use of language in all its forms. "Truth" as it is known only exists when it is finally christened as such. This process takes a long time (2000+ years of Aristotelian physics reigned as truth), but is nonetheless seen to happen.

Originally posted by Golf66
I know I am absolutely wrong when the wife says so...

I do not argue or over analyze after that declaration - it simply doesn't pay off. If I ever want to know if I am wrong I just talk to my wife about whatever it is.

I know if I am wrong she will not hesitate to tell me; however, if I am right she will simply point out the numerous ways I could possibly be wrong on other non related issues.

So - get married, you'll never be unsure again.

I'm on my third wife, so obviously I haven't got that fail-safe figured out.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Here's my understanding anyways:

I'm not sure there is a fail-safe. There is no omniscient World Text of Answers (The Big Fact) we can compare with our findings.

And yet, when you consider the fact that fact sets emerge to represent each and every occurrence (something happens/changes and as a default, a fact set fully representing that occurrence/change becomes permanently existent) the existence of an equivalent seems required as a result of simple ramification.

Or is that an insane notion in itself? I doesn't seem like it should be insane or even incorrect, but maybe the notion of an Informational Continuum is an illogical notion. But, if so, then why is such a notion of the existence of a "Text of Answers" an illogical notion, if it can be explained logically? Because no one has roped it, confined it, branded it and put it to work for a major corporation?

If occurrence does initiate a related fact set - at all - then a passive reference that contains every answer concerning the true nature of reality (contextually entangled as a result of whatever sub-structural commonality it is that locks each occurrence within a specific reality confine) must exist. The logical ramifications proceed to that conclusion.

Beyond my realization that such a source does - and must - exist, I'm back to dealing with the ugly issue of "faith" at some level. Even if it's only faith in my own capacity to accurately assess competing, conflicting and complementing data sets.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by NorEaster

 

What is my point?

I would just make sure to do whatever we can to avoid the closed system: refer to the concrete over the abstract; refer to the particular over the universal; do not rely on only ideas and notions, but ideas with experiential connections within the context of reality; do not rely strictly on one way of discovering truth (ie. pure mathematics, pure empiricism, pure semantics, pure theology); appeal to experience; remove fallacies and paradoxes; define axioms and assumptions; rhetorically refine our arguments; do not doubt where it is unnecessary (ie. denying reality altogether). This not only helps us refine the general idea for the palpability of our audience, but leads us closer to discovering "truth" ourselves.

Good point. The bitch about experimental connections is the inherent weakness involving empirical interpretation. Theoretical and even applied physics studies have produced terrible assertions due to weak interpretation of results indications, as we've seen posted here fairly often. Still, it has to have connecting dots to what's reliably evident.

When dealing with primordial issues, experimentation isn't really feasible. How do you establish the factual nature of objective truth by experimentation? You don't. Only by inference and causal progression examination can you even hope to accomplish that. And yet, you're still battling a DNA twitch (VMAT2 gene) that urges you to embrace the clearly inconceivable as being fundamental. Forget convincing others. How do you even clarify it for yourself?

reply to post by NorEaster

But, if so, then why is such a notion of the existence of a "Text of Answers" an illogical notion, if it can be explained logically? Because no one has roped it, confined it, branded it and put it to work for a major corporation?

I personally think we see this "text of answers" every moment of every day. No it won't tell us we are wrong or right, but she reveals herself at every moment. It seems, our outer senses perceive the raw data quite sufficiently, but our inner-senses are lacking the strength or know-how to interpret it as beautifully as we perceive it.

There seems to be three or four layers or processes this data must travel through before it ends up as an interpretation in a book: first the outer impression, second the inner impression, third the inner expression and fourth the outer expression. By the time that initial data ends up as words in a thesis, it has undergone quite the transformation.

Good point. The bitch about experimental connections is the inherent weakness involving empirical interpretation. Theoretical and even applied physics studies have produced terrible assertions due to weak interpretation of results indications, as we've seen posted here fairly often. Still, it has to have connecting dots to what's reliably evident.

When dealing with primordial issues, experimentation isn't really feasible. How do you establish the factual nature of objective truth by experimentation? You don't. Only by inference and causal progression examination can you even hope to accomplish that. And yet, you're still battling a DNA twitch (VMAT2 gene) that urges you to embrace the clearly inconceivable as being fundamental. Forget convincing others. How do you even clarify it for yourself?

I meant experiential connections, as in connecting our inferences to experience rather than relying strictly on logic or language. If these dots can be connected to experience, and can be experienced sensually, they hold a great deal more weight when it comes to objective truth. I think it is best to presume objective truth is concrete and something that can be experienced. When we are referring to concrete experience, we must also rely on concrete terms to make those connections, instead of opting for entirely abstract concepts. That is why thought experiments are key to any philosophical adventure, because experience is the only true premise from which we can deduce or induce.

Empiricism, unfortunately, utilizes more inductive reasoning than deductive reasoning. Although it works most of the time, a conclusion can be wiped out by one instance of the contrary. As an example, if we see 500 black crows, we would induce that all crows are black, but all it would take is one white crow to destroy that assertion. Because it can only be probabilistic, never truth, there is an assumptive leap of faith involved in inductive reasoning. It might help to use a combination of both inductive and deductive reasonings wherever possible.

reply to post by NorEaster

Originally posted by NorEaster
... the fact that both you and I can perceive anything at all insists that a foundational real exists, and that that "real" is objective and shared by both of us. And either this assertion is true or it's not true, whether either of us can prove it to be true one way of the other.

And this is the only thing that can be presented as true.

Even this description of an objective "foundational real" is a paradox, because no one has ever actually (directly) experienced an external objective world. Our entire experience of the so-called external world is actually a conceptual-perceptual event - and even by the time a perception occurs, the image being experienced is of a past event, i.e., it is a memory.

Originally posted by bb23108
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Originally posted by NorEaster
... the fact that both you and I can perceive anything at all insists that a foundational real exists, and that that "real" is objective and shared by both of us. And either this assertion is true or it's not true, whether either of us can prove it to be true one way of the other.

And this is the only thing that can be presented as true.

Even this description of an objective "foundational real" is a paradox, because no one has ever actually (directly) experienced an external objective world. Our entire experience of the so-called external world is actually a conceptual-perceptual event - and even by the time a perception occurs, the image being experienced is of a past event, i.e., it is a memory.

edit on 5-5-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)

The objective foundational real can be known to be true due to the requirement that it satisfies as the only possible way that a reliable, organized progressive development structure can survive. Such a structure does exist, and it's proven to exist every instant that anything persists as a direct result of the instant that preceded it. Existence is one thing. Persistence is an altogether different achievement. Persistence requires a reliable, organized reality structure, and this is true even if the only persisting thing is an observer that is projecting its own illusion as a perceived reality. The persistence of the observer is enough to require a reliable, organized progressive development structure, and since that can't exist without an objective foundational real that is in place, then that objective foundational real is a known quantity that does not need to be experienced to have its existence validated. It's validated by logical and empirical inference.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by NorEaster

 

But, if so, then why is such a notion of the existence of a "Text of Answers" an illogical notion, if it can be explained logically? Because no one has roped it, confined it, branded it and put it to work for a major corporation?

I personally think we see this "text of answers" every moment of every day. No it won't tell us we are wrong or right, but she reveals herself at every moment. It seems, our outer senses perceive the raw data quite sufficiently, but our inner-senses are lacking the strength or know-how to interpret it as beautifully as we perceive it.

There seems to be three or four layers or processes this data must travel through before it ends up as an interpretation in a book: first the outer impression, second the inner impression, third the inner expression and fourth the outer expression. By the time that initial data ends up as words in a thesis, it has undergone quite the transformation.

The real effort is in keeping that transformation as transparent as possible. It's going on 5 years now, and several complete rewrites, but I'm hopeful.

Good point. The bitch about experimental connections is the inherent weakness involving empirical interpretation. Theoretical and even applied physics studies have produced terrible assertions due to weak interpretation of results indications, as we've seen posted here fairly often. Still, it has to have connecting dots to what's reliably evident.

When dealing with primordial issues, experimentation isn't really feasible. How do you establish the factual nature of objective truth by experimentation? You don't. Only by inference and causal progression examination can you even hope to accomplish that. And yet, you're still battling a DNA twitch (VMAT2 gene) that urges you to embrace the clearly inconceivable as being fundamental. Forget convincing others. How do you even clarify it for yourself?

I meant experiential connections, as in connecting our inferences to experience rather than relying strictly on logic or language. If these dots can be connected to experience, and can be experienced sensually, they hold a great deal more weight when it comes to objective truth. I think it is best to presume objective truth is concrete and something that can be experienced. When we are referring to concrete experience, we must also rely on concrete terms to make those connections, instead of opting for entirely abstract concepts. That is why thought experiments are key to any philosophical adventure, because experience is the only true premise from which we can deduce or induce.

Still, experience is perception, and never objective or 100% accurate. There is an objective "yes", and we know this to be true as a result of developing technology that leverages that objective "yes" - simple computer circuits being a good example. That objective "yes" is the key to eliminating the impossible, and then there is direct inference to eliminate the improbably and implausible. In essence, an elimination strategy is what serves the effort as the primary tool, certainly not experience. Experience is sensory and sensory has too many degrees of separation between what is and what the brain interprets it to be. All that data handling is impossible to properly manage, and that forces experience to be ancillary (at best) as a research aid, and more effective as a marketing and sales tactic.

Empiricism, unfortunately, utilizes more inductive reasoning than deductive reasoning. Although it works most of the time, a conclusion can be wiped out by one instance of the contrary. As an example, if we see 500 black crows, we would induce that all crows are black, but all it would take is one white crow to destroy that assertion. Because it can only be probabilistic, never truth, there is an assumptive leap of faith involved in inductive reasoning. It might help to use a combination of both inductive and deductive reasonings wherever possible.

In this specific effort deductive reasoning is the only reasoning that is not going to send you into the guard rails.

A+B=C therefore C-B=A works. Making broad generalizations that may or may not include a specific aspect that could be assumed to be loosely associated with such a generalization is how religions and rumors get started.

reply to post by NorEaster

And how do you find out whether you've completely come off the rails or not? Especially in this global environment where every other person seems to have God or Jesus or Vishnu or ultimate enlightenment on speed dial.

When I check to see if someone has gone plum loco or simply didn't do any research, what I look for when reading someone's brilliant epiphany is the words and phrases they use. Using just one of the words below makes me cringe just a little, but when a whole essay is loaded with them I roll my eyes and move on. Let me point out that if someone is asking for opinions on an idea, these words and phrases are fine. It's when they are used in a bold declaration I think to myself, He's cuckoo for coco puffs!

Suppose that...
What if...
Imagine...
I believe...
My opinion is...
Maybe...
I think that...
Not sure, but...

That'd be great. A one-size-fits-all Acme fail-safe for a one-size-does-not-fit-all percept...while all you blind scientists were arguing that the body part you were holding, was an elephant, I stumbled around touching all the other parts...and formed a clearer picture (not the 'thing'!...a picture)...inclusion...
Rules delineate, and are an agent of bifurcation and exclusion by default...add this to a one-size-does-not-fit-all percept...you see where this is headed!?
The act of consciousness splitting must have been a doosey to work out...'I want to experience it all, from all points...and I don't want bots...I want myself split into billions of pieces - so I am it...'
A paradox only exists when two notions 'appear' to contradict...it's a sign, you're only holding the tail and the leg of the elephant...but that's all...

Exclusion will split phenomena even more than it needs to be...yet the two may be the same...big bang/creation...it is the split consciousnesses that cannot reconcile its unity of expression...(illustration purposes only)...

I have heard of isolated tribes who thought the camera was a machine that could capture your soul...therefore no photos...until such a time as the paradox (that which they understood) was resolved...you, and the image of you could exist for all to see...happy days!

A99

reply to post by NorEaster

Originally posted by NorEaster
The objective foundational real can be known to be true due to the requirement that it satisfies as the only possible way that a reliable, organized progressive development structure can survive. Such a structure does exist, and it's proven to exist every instant that anything persists as a direct result of the instant that preceded it. Existence is one thing. Persistence is an altogether different achievement. Persistence requires a reliable, organized reality structure, and this is true even if the only persisting thing is an observer that is projecting its own illusion as a perceived reality. The persistence of the observer is enough to require a reliable, organized progressive development structure, and since that can't exist without an objective foundational real that is in place, then that objective foundational real is a known quantity that does not need to be experienced to have its existence validated. It's validated by logical and empirical inference.

The mind is time-based or temporal. It creates the "myth" of time via attention to change that has already happened, or expectation of change to occur in the future. All such activity is about noticing change. However, the body appears in space (unlike mind) and is not time-based. It is simply locate-able in space and does not relate to the mind or time. Mind and body are not inseparable (though can be viewed as an integrated whole for practical and/or spiritual purposes in life, for scientific observation, for the sake of argument, to identify one another by name, etc.).

However, does the apparent "persistence of the observer" or the time-based mind of attention actually prove the existence of "a reliable, organized progressive development structure"? Such a structure would necessarily appear in space, but as you mention, existence is another matter.

Persistence (continued existence) is a time-based measurement by the mind observing change, but the mind of time and the objects of location (space) are not inseparable - mind is temporal and not locate-able in space, while body is locate-able in space not in time. This points to a paradoxical relationship between mind (time) and body (space) and would have to be accounted for prior to assuming that such "a reliable, organized progressive development structure" actually persists - unless, of course, this inherently paradoxical relationship is assumed as acceptable for the sake of argument.

This paradox is also pointed out in quantum physics with the Uncertainty Principle. It is understood that the speed (time) and location (space) of a particle of light (energy) cannot be precisely known simultaneously. This inherent paradox of the relationship between time and space cannot be overcome by scientific methodology and discovering what reality actually is in this manner, would have to account for all forms' speed, location, etc., simultaneously from all possible points-of-view. This is not knowable from even one point of view, much less all points-of-view.

So, unless this paradoxical nature of existence (space) and persistence (time) can be accounted for, how can one be certain of the model you are pointing to in your statement above?

In any event, thank you for the very thought-provoking thread!

Originally posted by bb23108
reply to post by NorEaster

 

However, does the apparent "persistence of the observer" or the time-based mind of attention actually prove the existence of "a reliable, organized progressive development structure"? Such a structure would necessarily appear in space, but as you mention, existence is another matter.

The persistence (ie; ongoing existential survival) of the observer establishes the existence of time progression if observation occurs at all, and i brought that up only because of all the chatter on this forum about the "observer" being the only real that actually exists. The observer's experience of "this followed by that" could not be possible if progressive development was not actual. It's that simple, and it's that simple even if you can't wrap your head around it. Reality is not dependent on achieving consensus. The logic is solid, and perception is not possible if what's doing the perceiving isn't based solidly, physically and logically.

Persistence (continued existence) is a time-based measurement by the mind observing change, but the mind of time and the objects of location (space) are not inseparable - mind is temporal and not locate-able in space, while body is locate-able in space not in time.

This just isn't true. Not any of it. Continued existence is not dependent on the mind's observation of change. Not by any means whatsoever. 99.99999999999999% of physical existence and the achievement of persistence was ongoing and established before the perceptive mind ever came into existence. The mind was the very last to emerge as a result of progressive development. It's an epitome achievement. You kids have your caboose pretending that it's pulling the train, but it's not.

This points to a paradoxical relationship between mind (time) and body (space) and would have to be accounted for prior to assuming that such "a reliable, organized progressive development structure" actually persists - unless, of course, this inherently paradoxical relationship is assumed as acceptable for the sake of argument.

um....this makes no sense at all. Not any sense whatsoever. The relationship between emergent wholes of any kind is a result not a prerequisite. You sure as hell can't look at such a relationship as a primordial influence or impetus. Okay, I suppose that you can, but you'll be approaching the whole examination from 180 degrees out of whack if you do.

This paradox is also pointed out in quantum physics with the Uncertainty Principle. It is understood that the speed (time) and location (space) of a particle of light (energy) cannot be precisely known simultaneously. This inherent paradox of the relationship between time and space cannot be overcome by scientific methodology and discovering what reality actually is in this manner, would have to account for all forms' speed, location, etc., simultaneously from all possible points-of-view. This is not knowable from even one point of view, much less all points-of-view.

So, unless this paradoxical nature of existence (space) and persistence (time) can be accounted for, how can one be certain of the model you are pointing to in your statement above?

In any event, thank you for the very thought-provoking thread!

edit on 6-5-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)

Uncertainty is not a determination. It's a lack of determination. Photons aren't indicative of anything other than the active nature of photons. Tossing an unrelated splatter of physics dilemmas into this specific question concerning the existence of a progressively developing sub-structure that bases physical existence is just lining words up for the sake of lining them up.

I have no interest in what this specific reality confine has established as "natural law" for its particles, faux-particles and informational wholes. It's just one reality confine after all. It's not the whole of foundational reality. The existence of progressive development supersedes whatever it is that develops as a result of it, and I was dealing - in the post that you replied to - with the issue of progressive development's existence.

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by NorEaster

 

And how do you find out whether you've completely come off the rails or not? Especially in this global environment where every other person seems to have God or Jesus or Vishnu or ultimate enlightenment on speed dial.

When I check to see if someone has gone plum loco or simply didn't do any research, what I look for when reading someone's brilliant epiphany is the words and phrases they use. Using just one of the words below makes me cringe just a little, but when a whole essay is loaded with them I roll my eyes and move on. Let me point out that if someone is asking for opinions on an idea, these words and phrases are fine. It's when they are used in a bold declaration I think to myself, He's cuckoo for coco puffs!

Suppose that...
What if...
Imagine...
I believe...
My opinion is...
Maybe...
I think that...
Not sure, but...

You're right. That said, I prefer the term "liar" when I see that kind of foolishness in someone's bold statement. I just read a book called "A Universe From Nothing" written by a guy named Lawrence Krauss. The previews were great, but then he started eating his how sh*t over the issue of what "nothing" means, as if that was going to be the way he was going to spin his theory about how the universe came into existence from nothing. By the time he got done churning his philosophical slop, anyone could've cracked that age-old question. Hell, I had it cold before he even got to the punch line. What a waste of time.

I have no respect for anyone that can't do what they promise. I really hate the idiots who rally around such a boob and defend the kind of worthlessness that these people make their names on.

reply to post by NorEaster
In reference to your last reply to me, I never said that "continued existence is dependent on the mind's observation of change". I was just using YOUR example of the observer function to make a point about persistence in that context. Also, I have never likened the observer to "be the only real that actually exists".

The observer is a function of attention that notices change and then assumes that time exists as an actual reality. However, time is simply an idea of mind that does not actually exist in space. No object or body ever appears in time, only space. And yes, the mind's concept of time, based on it's observation of change, does not prove persistence because objects are not of time, and mind is only of time.

By the way, rather than saying in response to my prior post that "This just isn't true. Not any of it" and then writing me off as a "kid", why don't you ask what I mean, if you don't understand something that I brought up - especially when YOU provided the "observer" context and you clearly did not understand that I was also speaking in that context. If you are not interested in this discussion, fine, but say that - rather than posting statements to me that are disrespectful and pretentious.

Anyway... You seem to be assuming that time is self-evident, and you are basing your concepts of the real and persistence on this notion. Is this correct?

Also, do you agree that only the mind is of time - and that the body and objects simply appear in space, and are not of time? Do you think that the body actually experiences time? Do you think the mind appears in space? Or does only the mind experience the idea of time by noticing objects changing? These are important concepts to consider if one is wanting to understand what is actually real.

One has to release one's time-based mental notions to recognize reality. You seem to think you can "wrap your head" around reality. But even our "shared" reality cannot be objectified into an exact picture of what is real.

Everyone has a different point-of-view when looking at the same object - and so no exact description of what that object actually looks like in reality is even possible. Every point-of-view changes one's perceived reality, and unless we had exactly the same point of view, it is not possible to share the same reality exactly.

Reality encompasses all possible points-of-view including no point-of-view. What does anything appear like from the standpoint of reality?

I bring all of this up because you are not going to wrap your head around reality because it is beyond any and all points-of-view.

Only when there is absolutely no point-of-view can one understand reality - then existence simply is, as reality - and all space-time is seen for what it is - as modifications of reality's light. But this recognition is beyond the point-of-view machine of mind.

Space-time is a paradox and clearly cannot be known objectively, because such objective knowing requires a knower, i.e., an inherently limited point-of-view. So no, I do not see there are any absolute grounds for proving that an "objective foundational real" exists. What does it look like?

Yes, Reality exists, but it is not objective.

reply to post by NorEaster

Your posts are always well thought in my opinion NorEaster. I always give them extra weight when I see them. So if that means anything to you then you can take it and go with it.

So if at least some people like your posts it should mean something.

So how to know of you're wrong? Well, that's harder to do. That requires something empirical. And a lot of topics on ATS are like the god question. How can you disprove God?

This website is DENY IGNORANCE. But how do we deny ignorance about God? What evidence is there for God? None. Is that right? Or am I ignorant if I reject a spiritual inquiry to find God?

I've always liked topics that're hard to classify or hard to quantify. I like the feeling of freedom that comes with it. However, these things usually cannot be settled. They're unanswerable.

What's the best philosophy? Is there a best philosophy? Not really a wrong or a right. That's why philosophy can be so fun. So many options. You have to find one that interests you.

It's always what's just outside our ability to observe and quantify that's the most delicious thing to chat about. But I guess it depends on the person. Some people like to define things discretely.

To me it's not so much what's right or wrong, it's Am I enjoying it?

I do have a tolerance for things. I try not to stray toooooo far away from keeping my feet firmly planted on the ground. But sometimes I can't help it. I get caught up in all the fun.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by pheonix358
Every person lives in their own reality.

P

Insert "perceived" between "own" and "reality", and I'll agree. That said, the fact that both you and I can perceive anything at all insists that a foundational real exists, and that that "real" is objective and shared by both of us. And either this assertion is true or it's not true, whether either of us can prove it to be true one way of the other.

And this is the only thing that can be presented as true.

I've got a writers' retreat to attend this morning and afternoon, so carry on and I'll stop by later.

edit on 5/4/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

If i tell you something you just have to believe it to be true for it to be true. No one else has to believe me or you but evidently you may compare what has been said with what the "average truth" from societies perspective is. Do you really believe the electrical impulses and chemicals released by your brain define facts as objective? Try this for an example. Do not read any news or information of that nature at all for two weeks and when people tell you things, objective things because they believe it what are you going to do. Believe them, search for the answers online or go experience what is said first hand for yourself.
Nothing can really be objective if things are always changing and people are dieing. This is probably going to sound stupid but if everyone died off tomorrow bar say 1000 people scattered over the planet, what is objective today by critical mass standards wont necessarily be the same tomorrow.
If i need a "fact" then i would need to prove that to someone. But that someone is not "me" so i would only need to present this to them to manipulate their state of mind to something i could control for my agenda.

reply to post by NorEaster


Even most scientists will admit that there is no absolute certainty. Nothing can be known with 100% certainty. If there is not 100% certainty, then how can there be an absolutely certain truth?

If truth is not absolute, then it is relative. If it is relative, then reality is subjective to some extent.

Originally posted by NorEaster

So, here's the question.

How do you know when to pull the trigger on it, or is there any way to ever know?

A toe at a time, or balls and all, isn't that the decision? (Think extremely hot bath)
am having the same delema at the moment if it helps. Know stuff, not sure what to do with it. Actually that's not true, don't listen to me....

Originally posted by NorEaster
And how do you find out whether you've completely come off the rails or not? Especially in this global environment where every other person seems to have God or Jesus or Vishnu or ultimate enlightenment on speed dial.

I'm curious to know who YOU think you have on speed dial....since you brought it up....

Originally posted by NorEaster
I'm hoping that there is a qualified logician or trained theorist with the juice to comprehensively address this question who chances upon it before it slides off the front page.

You have such a way with words man, I like it.
I'm not qualified, which raises the question, how does one become qualified at such things?

I really want to say to you just spit it out, what do you think you have discovered?

Originally posted by AussieAmandaC

Originally posted by NorEaster
And how do you find out whether you've completely come off the rails or not? Especially in this global environment where every other person seems to have God or Jesus or Vishnu or ultimate enlightenment on speed dial.

I'm curious to know who YOU think you have on speed dial....since you brought it up....

I have a rotary phone. No speed dial whatsoever.

Originally posted by NorEaster
I'm hoping that there is a qualified logician or trained theorist with the juice to comprehensively address this question who chances upon it before it slides off the front page.

You have such a way with words man, I like it.
I'm not qualified, which raises the question, how does one become qualified at such things?

I really want to say to you just spit it out, what do you think you have discovered?

If it's real, then it's the difference between seeing the true nature of physical reality and being completely blind (and yet not even being able to realize that you're completely blind). If it's not real, then I'm completely insane. There's really no other choices here, since it's not a philosophy or ideology. It's a stone-cold determination concerning objective reality, so it's not open to individual interpretation at all.

And yet, most people don't even believe in an objective reality. So there you have it. It's even more contrary a notion in that sense than if I were to spend the hours laying it all out for you, with reference links and physics tutorials.

Basically, this "thing" debunks pretty much every scientific model that exists, without affecting any established reality anchor that has proven itself to be authentic and reliable. Of course, it dismisses the entire concept of "holy", as well as demotes all supreme beings to the ranks of human scam artists, but that's no real achievement.

This is why it's so difficult to accept at face value. The implications are overwhelming.

Originally posted by arpgme
reply to post by NorEaster

 

Even most scientists will admit that there is no absolute certainty. Nothing can be known with 100% certainty. If there is not 100% certainty, then how can there be an absolutely certain truth?

If truth is not absolute, then it is relative. If it is relative, then reality is subjective to some extent.

edit on 7-5-2013 by arpgme because: (no reason given)

Most scientists are expert in a very tiny slice of what's real and true, which ends up with their being only certain about their window into a relative environment that they've artificially closed off so that they can poke sticks at it to see what it does when you poke sticks at it. Their focuses are extremely small, so what would you expect from them if asked to comment on the open question concerning physical reality? That isn't a view that any of them (that I've ever seen with published papers) pursue.

It's true that no one can know 100% of everything but I have come to believe that you can know what's true about what is the basis of all that exists as physical (material and non-material) with 100% certainty. And the reason I think that this is true is because the basis is - by requirement - extremely simple and extremely primitive. It sure can't be sophisticated or complex. If it was, then it couldn't be the basis, since it would have to possess its own existential basis, which would mean that its basis would be the primordial basis - it's the "turtles all the way down" conundrum. Even when you're allowing for emergence, dealing with some degree of reductionism is inevitable.

Once you've established that existential quantum, the walk back toward where we stand today is surprisingly easy as long as you are willing to ignore the cultural insistence for miracles.