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

reply to post by Semicollegiate

Originally posted by Semicollegiate
The fact that everything exsists in the first place is miraculous.

Well said - it is a mystery, to be sure!

We can also begin to notice that objects and others are not so fixed as we tend to believe. A simple exercise is to fully consider an object - what is it actually? What IS it in Reality? We can describe it endlessly down to its most minute details, but this is description only, just words that convey meanings but not its actual reality. What IS it?

We can never know, we don't even know EXACTLY how the object appears in Reality, because we can only look at it from one point-of-view at a time. To know how it appears EXACTLY in Reality, we would have to see it from all points-of-view, and we know this is not possible.

Once we see that no thing or other is knowable altogether, we can get more sensitive to how our attempts to know everything are a separative gesture of attention itself. Releasing this constant gesture to know/separate from all objects and others, we become sensitive to the unknowability of everything and everyone. Thus the unknowable mystery and miracle of life is recognized, the body-mind begins to function more as a participant in life altogether rather than just as a separated knower, and the fixed notions we have about a materialistic universe get loosened.

Of course, this can only be recognized by us directly, rather than just being a belief or faith-based presumption. And such an understanding is not at odds with scientific-methodology in which the effect of the "observer" is attempted to be minimized.

After all of this, I can think of one certain fail-safe to know if we are wrong - if our theories are based on the assumption that we know what some "thing" IS in Reality. As I have mentioned several times, no one knows what a single thing actually IS in Reality - and so this is a certain fail-safe way of knowing we are wrong if we are presuming we do have such knowledge.

Of course, this does not cover all the theories that are not based on a foundation of knowing what something IS in Reality - but still it is definitely a good (even humbling) disposition to embrace in terms of the inherent unknowability of the Reality in we have all arisen.

Originally posted by bb23108
After all of this, I can think of one certain fail-safe to know if we are wrong - if our theories are based on the assumption that we know what some "thing" IS in Reality. As I have mentioned several times, no one knows what a single thing actually IS in Reality - and so this is a certain fail-safe way of knowing we are wrong if we are presuming we do have such knowledge.

Of course, this does not cover all the theories that are not based on a foundation of knowing what something IS in Reality - but still it is definitely a good (even humbling) disposition to embrace in terms of the inherent unknowability of the Reality in we have all arisen.

edit on 5/14/2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)

Before we can ascertain what something is we have to first find out what we are measuring it with. If we don't know what we are then how can we know what anything else is?

reply to post by bb23108

After all of this, I can think of one certain fail-safe to know if we are wrong - if our theories are based on the assumption that we know what some "thing" IS in Reality. As I have mentioned several times, no one knows what a single thing actually IS in Reality - and so this is a certain fail-safe way of knowing we are wrong if we are presuming we do have such knowledge.

Of course, this does not cover all the theories that are not based on a foundation of knowing what something IS in Reality - but still it is definitely a good (even humbling) disposition to embrace in terms of the inherent unknowability of the Reality in we have all arisen.

Yes I think you are correct.

Science defines things in terms of measurements, which are real. Meters and feet are defined in such a way as to be real and completely known. As are Calories, joules, grams, Kelvin, seconds, lumens, and Coulombs. Science tries to refer to objects only in terms of their defined units of measure. Science is real as far as it goes.
The foot and the meter are essentially random units. They may or may not measure something real in the absolute reality of infinite dimentions (if there are dimentions) and magnitudes and perhaps even in amounts of beingness. Degrees or levels of exsistance.

Our instincts and perceptions come from a specific cross section of reality. Things real to us are limited in size, or else they are imperceptable to the senses. On the other hand , our minds might have a natural congruence with the basic structure of reality, or some other important organizing or determining principle.

In the first year of a college level science course, the student is shown a chart of measurements. The smallest sizes are subatomic, (.0000000000000028 meters across a quark) and the largest sizes are astronomical, (558,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 miles across the universe). Our whole pre-scientific experience is in three or four zeros in the middle. We are always in danger of applying the insights learned from our place in the middle scale to the regions at the extremes that are alien to us.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by bb23108
After all of this, I can think of one certain fail-safe to know if we are wrong - if our theories are based on the assumption that we know what some "thing" IS in Reality. As I have mentioned several times, no one knows what a single thing actually IS in Reality - and so this is a certain fail-safe way of knowing we are wrong if we are presuming we do have such knowledge.

Of course, this does not cover all the theories that are not based on a foundation of knowing what something IS in Reality - but still it is definitely a good (even humbling) disposition to embrace in terms of the inherent unknowability of the Reality in we have all arisen.

edit on 5/14/2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)

Before we can ascertain what something is we have to first find out what we are measuring it with. If we don't know what we are then how can we know what anything else is?

edit on 14-5-2013 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)

Removed my response