FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


All Truth Is Subject To Individual Perception





pentangeli
And not only that, if you perceive something to be real - is it. This isn't from any pan-psychic or zen standpoint. It's merely just an observation that reality itself is determined by "fact", but "fact" itself is not an exact science. What? How can you say such a thing!? Well, *lights the blue litmus paper* Science itself is not an exact science.

A "fact" aka (temporary) law" is only a commonly shared (and perhaps critically, an undisprovable) perspective of what is actual. I mean, this actually means that "God" is a fact too (scientifically!). It finds integrity in the age old "a hundred million chinese people can't be wrong" maxim, which under a more powerful microscope, suggests that already on shaky foundations (albeit, hypocritically discounting the world's 4 major religions and the percentage of humanity that adheres to them). For example, it was once a fact that the earth was flat. It's not anymore. It rests it's laurels on "Umm, we have nothing better yet". Constant updates are healthy, but it makes you question the validity of advancements even a million years from now. Does this mean we will never evolve? Well evolution is just theory, right? Or is it a fact? So hard to tell!

Love is fact. How? Pain is a fact. How?

You think this post is incorrect. Is that the truth? All truth is subject to individual perception. It seems true to me. Yet false to you. Maybe I'm bs'ing you. Maybe you think it's the truth and I'm just posting for the frih. Maybe I could just tailgate other posts and paraphrase other people's posts for the same deal. What's true? You decide.

Objectivity, Causality, Sentience. All facts.

And a fact is as fallible as the one that replaces it. So was it ever a true fact in the first place? And if it was a true fact, and still is, "truth" is still determined by individual perspective so it's still flawed. True?

It's my contention, that whatever you think about all of this, you're both right and wrong at the same time. Fact!
jeffryjon
I've been regularly pulled up on my tendency to break words down to pose suggestions of what they really mean. My take on words is they developed from truth - reality - and basic sounds that we made relating to how we felt/perceived something. Some may say words are just refined grunts, whimpers, universal sounds related to joy, pain etc and the different ways we perceive them. So fact, what is it? Perception, as you say. When enough people agree or can see where you're coming from, we may have a commonly held belief that seems to hold true - until of course, new evidence comes to light.

I anticipate some strong challenges to what I'm about to say, though here-goes.

Fact is something that presents a strong enough case f'r-action. Action in thoughts - action in words - action in physicality - F-ACT

This should be fun Very Happy
deanhills
pentangeli wrote:

It's my contention, that whatever you think about all of this, you're both right and wrong at the same time. Fact!
I like where you are going with this, as for me there is a seed of right in wrong as there is a seed of wrong in right. A seed of love in hate, as there is a seed of hate in love ...... Yesterday's truth can easily become tomorrow's lie. And who knows in a few generations they will laugh at the way science experiments "used to be conducted", as scientists "then" did not have the same tools to work with. Everything is basically possible as everything evolves and changes all the time
Bluedoll
I agree, perception is everything and action shows us so much. The Greeks debated this to no end – see we still are! Are we taking about forever changing knowledge, yes I think so. A fact, what is that? But the truth, oh the truth is best said this way. . . . . . . .

If you talk about stuff super great discussion true but inside the quote untrue.

pentangeli wrote:
A "fact" aka (temporary) law" is only a commonly shared (and perhaps critically, an undisprovable) perspective of what is actual. I mean, this actually means that "God" is a fact too (scientifically!).


. . . . . . . .. . When asked what is truth, Jesus said, “I am the truth and the way.”(translation works for me)
pentangeli
deanhills wrote:
pentangeli wrote:

It's my contention, that whatever you think about all of this, you're both right and wrong at the same time. Fact!
I like where you are going with this, as for me there is a seed of right in wrong as there is a seed of wrong in right. A seed of love in hate, as there is a seed of hate in love ......


Are you saying that God, an omni potent, all knowing, all seeing concept, invented the devil to give himself/good/purity/love a pole opposite and therefore... a definition? Because if he didn't create evil, he'd not exist? They'd be no sin, no heaven & hell concept, and no good or evil, no right or wrong and no light and dark? It says "A God said, let there be light". Himself, basically. Without getting into the Aristotle/Aquinan arguments about a God creating itself, let's just ponder than even God was answerable to something. The fact that he had to create his nemesis, not to co-exist but to exist at all! Shocked
pentangeli
Bluedoll wrote:
I agree, perception is everything and action shows us so much. The Greeks debated this to no end – see we still are! Are we taking about forever changing knowledge, yes I think so. A fact, what is that? But the truth, oh the truth is best said this way. . . . . . . .

If you talk about stuff super great discussion true but inside the quote untrue.

pentangeli wrote:
A "fact" aka (temporary) law" is only a commonly shared (and perhaps critically, an undisprovable) perspective of what is actual. I mean, this actually means that "God" is a fact too (scientifically!).


. . . . . . . .. . When asked what is truth, Jesus said, “I am the truth and the way.”(translation works for me)


But he also said, "You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God"

Bizarre statement, and one which trusts we find Him as our Lord and not an "other God" and that we do not worship his likeness (his son incarnate) - on the earth or below it and that we do wear the crucifix nor pray to statues, only rosary beads, nor revere the body of Christ as a sacrament. He also intimates that he is capable of sin. The sin of Pride, aka "envy" ("am a jealous God"). Wowzers.

You know a lot of what Jesus said was written by men? All truth is subject to individual perception. I take it you are Christian? Me too. But I follow Christ, not Christians. I take the actions of Christ as the way. Not the misinterpretations of man's opinion of what he thinks Christ meant to say. I know they are saints, but putting words in God's mouth? Speaking on his behalf? I've never been that confident.
pentangeli
jeffryjon wrote:
I've been regularly pulled up on my tendency to break words down to pose suggestions of what they really mean. My take on words is they developed from truth - reality - and basic sounds that we made relating to how we felt/perceived something. Some may say words are just refined grunts, whimpers, universal sounds related to joy, pain etc and the different ways we perceive them. So fact, what is it? Perception, as you say. When enough people agree or can see where you're coming from, we may have a commonly held belief that seems to hold true - until of course, new evidence comes to light.

I anticipate some strong challenges to what I'm about to say, though here-goes.

Fact is something that presents a strong enough case f'r-action. Action in thoughts - action in words - action in physicality - F-ACT

This should be fun Very Happy


That's some pretty deep stuff, Jeff. And posted in the right place. I gotta beg to differ though. I think "Fact" is maybe even the exact opposite of that. You see the possibility of "action" echoes what I was referencing with causality. The ability for the thing to be changed in some way. To be moved in some direction, whether backwards or forwards. The ability for the thing to evolve or progress. Like, it can have an action applied to it. Fact (by definition) isn't that. It's stagnant and sedentary. It's (supposed to be) "set in stone". The immovable object of infallibility. 100% absolutism. God, if you will. But in being so exact, it's soulless, void of interaction, sterile, infertile and... well, dead?
jeffryjon
pentangeli wrote:
Bluedoll wrote:
I agree, perception is everything and action shows us so much. The Greeks debated this to no end – see we still are! Are we taking about forever changing knowledge, yes I think so. A fact, what is that? But the truth, oh the truth is best said this way. . . . . . . .

If you talk about stuff super great discussion true but inside the quote untrue.

pentangeli wrote:
A "fact" aka (temporary) law" is only a commonly shared (and perhaps critically, an undisprovable) perspective of what is actual. I mean, this actually means that "God" is a fact too (scientifically!).


. . . . . . . .. . When asked what is truth, Jesus said, “I am the truth and the way.”(translation works for me)


But he also said, "You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God"

Bizarre statement, and one which trusts we find Him as our Lord and not an "other God" and that we do not worship his likeness (his son incarnate) - on the earth or below it and that we do wear the crucifix nor pray to statues, only rosary beads, nor revere the body of Christ as a sacrament. He also intimates that he is capable of sin. The sin of Pride, aka "envy" ("am a jealous God"). Wowzers.

You know a lot of what Jesus said was written by men? All truth is subject to individual perception. I take it you are Christian? Me too. But I follow Christ, not Christians. I take the actions of Christ as the way. Not the misinterpretations of man's opinion of what he thinks Christ meant to say. I know they are saints, but putting words in God's mouth? Speaking on his behalf? I've never been that confident.


As ancient languages had much less and in some cases no grammar, then translations can be very debatable. Talking face to face means we can convey much more meaning than the words we speak. Someone/anyone can come along later to translate and fail to see what was meant. Even in these forums we see the same phenomena.

Thou shalt have no other gods before me - note the lowercase 'm' in me.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth - could read as don't make yourself into any of these things. Am I a plumber or a doctor? Even if, should I be restricted to these graven (written in stone) images?

Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me - don't be less than what you are, don't bow down to such a finite assessment of yourself or anything that confines you to it or believe me (in this case possibly 'me' being the greater 'myself'), I will resent it and make this life a misery - and on it goes.

There's also evidence to suggest that the subconscious remembers far more than the conscious mind, which could explain theories of omnipotence, omnipresence etc. that would correlate with the 'god' being the greater self.

Imagine for a example, a woman reacting to a man because some guy slapped her when she was 4 years old whilst wearing the same aftershave as the guy currently in her presence. You know, the "I can't put my finger on it but there's something about that guy - he's dangerous" types of statements. The same phenomena could also invoke a pleasurable reaction that the conscious mind has no explanation of. Alternatively there could be a mixture of these things and we get mixed feelings about someone/ something.

Of course there's many other things that could affect the woman's perception in this case - I'm just using an example to show the point. I remember hearing a song once and getting a full flashback experience that was so convincing it 'placed' me in the room where I first heard it - I even went and revisited the place to see if certain things were there which appeared in the flashback - they were - with immense accuracy. Take that to extremes and we have part of a God/god theory - but not a God-proof - not even to myself.
deanhills
pentangeli wrote:
deanhills wrote:
pentangeli wrote:

It's my contention, that whatever you think about all of this, you're both right and wrong at the same time. Fact!
I like where you are going with this, as for me there is a seed of right in wrong as there is a seed of wrong in right. A seed of love in hate, as there is a seed of hate in love ......


Are you saying that God, an omni potent, all knowing, all seeing concept, invented the devil to give himself/good/purity/love a pole opposite and therefore... a definition? Because if he didn't create evil, he'd not exist? They'd be no sin, no heaven & hell concept, and no good or evil, no right or wrong and no light and dark? It says "A God said, let there be light". Himself, basically. Without getting into the Aristotle/Aquinan arguments about a God creating itself, let's just ponder than even God was answerable to something. The fact that he had to create his nemesis, not to co-exist but to exist at all! Shocked
That depends on how you see God. If you see Him as something in the likeness of a human being but just a few steps better, then you could probably start a blame game. But for me He transcends all of this chaos. I think earthlings are completely limited by their senses and their mortality and that it is impossible for them to fathom what God is, or is not. They can perhaps take some stabs in the dark, but most probably we will die with that mystery. Trying to figure it out with our heads is a trap by the way. Like sticking your hand into a thorn bush. Hence why kids are better off than we are.
jeffryjon
pentangeli wrote:
jeffryjon wrote:
I've been regularly pulled up on my tendency to break words down to pose suggestions of what they really mean. My take on words is they developed from truth - reality - and basic sounds that we made relating to how we felt/perceived something. Some may say words are just refined grunts, whimpers, universal sounds related to joy, pain etc and the different ways we perceive them. So fact, what is it? Perception, as you say. When enough people agree or can see where you're coming from, we may have a commonly held belief that seems to hold true - until of course, new evidence comes to light.

I anticipate some strong challenges to what I'm about to say, though here-goes.

Fact is something that presents a strong enough case f'r-action. Action in thoughts - action in words - action in physicality - F-ACT

This should be fun Very Happy


That's some pretty deep stuff, Jeff. And posted in the right place. I gotta beg to differ though. I think "Fact" is maybe even the exact opposite of that. You see the possibility of "action" echoes what I was referencing with causality. The ability for the thing to be changed in some way. To be moved in some direction, whether backwards or forwards. The ability for the thing to evolve or progress. Like, it can have an action applied to it. Fact (by definition) isn't that. It's stagnant and sedentary. It's (supposed to be) "set in stone". The immovable object of infallibility. 100% absolutism. God, if you will. But in being so exact, it's soulless, void of interaction, sterile, infertile and... well, dead?


That's pretty much what is generally accepted, a fact is a fact is a fact - period. Though what if a fact is simply accepted as being what you just described and that's what allows us to act on it (in thought, word or physicality). We do an experiment a 1,000 times and get the same result - then we conclude the same result as being something that allows us to rely on it and act as if it is and always will be true. Problem is, using my same approach to words, the conclusion is 'with-clue-sion' and not the final stage - conclusion is a best guess based on the clues we have at any present moment - ultimately everything we do is an act of faith.
Bluedoll
@deanhills - I agree there are many mystery’s to discover, like how to make something out of nothing, or how to exist when there is no physical dimensions present in a void. Hard questions to fathom. What God is?
Quote:




T h e C r e a t o r





@pentangeli - I agree with you 1000 more times than a one time. Follow Jesus Christ, yes. What we have in translations, in writing, in the bible was all written by man, read by man, interrupted by man, discussed by man and we seek truth from it. It can it be misused, misapplied but we are blessed we do have it.
We all have gifts to share, I see you sharing yours right now. I like sharing my understanding of the scriptures just like the man who was speaking to people far off, Jesus was asked, “should we put a stop to this man.” Jesus said, “no let him speak for men are either with us or they are against us.”
I do not put words in Gods mouth nor speak in his behalf but I do share words with others and have the authority to do so.
Bikerman
pentangeli wrote:
And not only that, if you perceive something to be real - is it. This isn't from any pan-psychic or zen standpoint. It's merely just an observation that reality itself is determined by "fact", but "fact" itself is not an exact science. What? How can you say such a thing!? Well, *lights the blue litmus paper* Science itself is not an exact science.
A fact is something that is observed to be true, regardless of the observer. 'Science is not an exact science' is tautologous. Science is a method of determining fact and the relationships that operate to produce those facts.
Systems tend to increasing entropy - that is a fact. Heat flows from hotter to cooler - that is a fact.
Quote:
A "fact" aka (temporary) law" is only a commonly shared (and perhaps critically, an undisprovable) perspective of what is actual.
No it isn't. A fact is not a law - temporary or otherwise. A fact is a singular statement. A law is a general case. A law can be tested and if it fails then it isn't a law, and never was.
Quote:
I mean, this actually means that "God" is a fact too (scientifically!).
Nonsense.
Quote:
It finds integrity in the age old "a hundred million chinese people can't be wrong" maxim, which under a more powerful microscope, suggests that already on shaky foundations (albeit, hypocritically discounting the world's 4 major religions and the percentage of humanity that adheres to them).
This is known as the fallacy ad-populum.If 6 billion people believe that the sun is 400 miles away and only 1 thinks it is approximately 93 million miles away, it remains a fact that the one is correct.
Quote:
For example, it was once a fact that the earth was flat.
This is trotted out so many times it is depressing. No intelligent person has considered the world to be flat since before the ancient greeks. Not that it matters - the fact that it is an oblate spheroid is and always has been true. It has never been a 'fact' that it is flat.
Quote:
It's not anymore. It rests it's laurels on "Umm, we have nothing better yet". Constant updates are healthy, but it makes you question the validity of advancements even a million years from now. Does this mean we will never evolve? Well evolution is just theory, right? Or is it a fact? So hard to tell!
That is because you don't understand what the word 'theory' means - which is again fairly depressing since it is explained with monotonous regularity.
A scientific theory is an explanation for what we see. It isn't a guess or a 'possibility' - it is the best possible explanation given current data. All science is theory and people mistake this for meaning that scientific 'theory' is in some way shaky or likely to change. It is neither.
Evolution is a theory, and it is also 'true' if you want me to use an unscientific word. Evolution is as certain as anything else in science - which is very certain indeed.
Quote:
Love is fact. How? Pain is a fact. How?
Neither are 'facts'. Both are subjective. You could say that 'I am feeling pain' and that might be a fact.
Quote:
You think this post is incorrect. Is that the truth? All truth is subject to individual perception. It seems true to me. Yet false to you. Maybe I'm bs'ing you. Maybe you think it's the truth and I'm just posting for the frih. Maybe I could just tailgate other posts and paraphrase other people's posts for the same deal. What's true? You decide.
Truth is not subject to individual perception. If something is only observed by one person and cannot be observed by others then it isn't 'true' in anything other than a subjective sense. Science does not deal with subjective truths, it deals with repeatable solid observational facts.
Quote:
Objectivity, Causality, Sentience. All facts.
Nope. They are not facts at all. A fact is a statement which can be tested.
Quote:
And a fact is as fallible as the one that replaces it. So was it ever a true fact in the first place? And if it was a true fact, and still is, "truth" is still determined by individual perspective so it's still flawed. True?
No, complete nonsense.
pentangeli
Hey I didn't feel any of that last post. "Nonsense" with no explanation (perhaps worst than reiterating everything I've already said, slightly reworded - to prove me "untrue") is for the birds. Like I say, you've just said sentience is not a fact. haha. I won't call that nonsense, that's your opinion, Mr Meat Robot, and I'm gonna let you ride with it!

Happy Trails.
pentangeli
deanhills wrote:
I think earthlings are completely limited by their senses and their mortality and that it is impossible for them to fathom what God is, or is not.


I fully agree with this and have been saying the same thing for years.
pentangeli
Bluedoll wrote:
@deanhills - I agree there are many mystery’s to discover, like how to make something out of nothing, or how to exist when there is no physical dimensions present in a void. Hard questions to fathom. What God is?
Quote:




T h e C r e a t o r





@pentangeli - I agree with you 1000 more times than a one time. Follow Jesus Christ, yes. What we have in translations, in writing, in the bible was all written by man, read by man, interrupted by man, discussed by man and we seek truth from it. It can it be misused, misapplied but we are blessed we do have it.
We all have gifts to share, I see you sharing yours right now. I like sharing my understanding of the scriptures just like the man who was speaking to people far off, Jesus was asked, “should we put a stop to this man.” Jesus said, “no let him speak for men are either with us or they are against us.”
I do not put words in Gods mouth nor speak in his behalf but I do share words with others and have the authority to do so.


I hold the scriptures in the highest regard and have a great deal of respect for the writings (especially those of John, Matthew and Paul). I'm even a pretty big Leviticus fan. haha, call me crazy, I just like religious badasses too. Christ turning tables in the temple on the money changers is my favorite story. However, I think people live and often unfortunately die (literally) by the letter (not just in Christianity - even moreso in other religions) and I think it's a fool's errand. There's an overall theme deeply weaved within all these stories, and no one translation from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek to Latin to German to English should be taken case sensitivity literally. At least from my perspective. My eyes and ears which inform my brain to form a conclusion based upon sentience, past experience, fears, love, successes, failures and of course the habitual likes and dislikes which make up what I regard to be my "soul". Ah the soul. Another factless immeasurable unquantifiable truth. Right, Biker?

And before you get the unerring urge to argue your case, further, ask yourself why you "feel" that way? A scientific flesh machine cares not for one-up-manship.
Bikerman
pentangeli wrote:
I hold the scriptures in the highest regard and have a great deal of respect for the writings (especially those of John, Matthew and Paul). I'm even a pretty big Leviticus fan. haha, call me crazy, I just like religious badasses too. Christ turning tables in the temple on the money changers is my favorite story. However, I think people live and often unfortunately die (literally) by the letter (not just in Christianity - even moreso in other religions) and I think it's a fool's errand. There's an overall theme deeply weaved within all these stories, and no one translation from Hebrew to Aramaic to Greek to Latin to German to English should be taken case sensitivity literally. At least from my perspective. My eyes and ears which inform my brain to form a conclusion based upon sentience, past experience, fears, love, successes, failures and of course the habitual likes and dislikes which make up what I regard to be my "soul". Ah the soul. Another factless immeasurable unquantifiable truth. Right, Biker?
Yes, quite right. The notion of a 'soul' appears to be an entirely religious creation. I see no overall theme in the writings you refer to - in fact I see a variety of themes, some of which are contradictory.
Quote:
And before you get the unerring urge to argue your case, further, ask yourself why you "feel" that way? A scientific flesh machine cares not for one-up-manship.
That is a non-sequitur. We have a brain - that brain generates the 'mind'. The 'mind' is what gives rise to what you call the 'soul'.
jeffryjon
Bikerman wrote:
A fact is something that is observed to be true, regardless of the observer. 'Science is not an exact science' is tautologous. Science is a method of determining fact and the relationships that operate to produce those facts.
Systems tend to increasing entropy - that is a fact. Heat flows from hotter to cooler - that is a fact.


Fact - as defined by the Concise Oxford dictionary - italics by me - originally meaning 'an act' , later (in the context of) 'a crime': from Latin 'factum', neuter past particle of 'facere' meaning 'do'.

To reiterate and with addition to my previous explanation of the word 'fact'. It is something which appears sufficiently evident for us to act or take action in thought, word or deed.

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
A "fact" aka (temporary) law" is only a commonly shared (and perhaps critically, an undisprovable) perspective of what is actual.
No it isn't. A fact is not a law - temporary or otherwise. A fact is a singular statement. A law is a general case. A law can be tested and if it fails then it isn't a law, and never was.


Agreed Bikerman, though I'd like to reword the above slightly. When someone claims something is a law and upon testing the claim, it proves not to be a law then it never was - it was simply a claim. We can say that something is claimed as a law and that in itself is a fact, though the fact something is claimed as a law doesn't necessarily mean it is a law.

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
I mean, this actually means that "God" is a fact too (scientifically!).
Nonsense.


Changing definitions of words is a human trait, though it's also potentially dangerous. It leads to people arguing the same standpoint, whilst simultaneously believing they're on opposite sides. Both the theists and atheists have a tendency to refer to writings of the past which in some cases date back 100's or even 1000's of years. If we use a modern (mis/)understanding of a word (by that I mean misunderstanding or understanding), whilst quoting old texts, we're in great danger of shooting ourselves in the foot. In the sense that God appears evident to a sufficient number of people to act on that premise, God is a fact, has been a fact for quite sometime and only time will tell whether God remains a fact.

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
It finds integrity in the age old "a hundred million chinese people can't be wrong" maxim, which under a more powerful microscope, suggests that already on shaky foundations (albeit, hypocritically discounting the world's 4 major religions and the percentage of humanity that adheres to them).
This is known as the fallacy ad-populum.If 6 billion people believe that the sun is 400 miles away and only 1 thinks it is approximately 93 million miles away, it remains a fact that the one is correct.


Classic misundertstanding. Correct is just that - it's right, straight, is able to hold itself together and is properly guided. We humans are hopefully on a path tending toward correctness, but can only be sure to attain that straight path if we're constantly open to reassessment of facts.

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
For example, it was once a fact that the earth was flat.
This is trotted out so many times it is depressing. No intelligent person has considered the world to be flat since before the ancient greeks. Not that it matters - the fact that it is an oblate spheroid is and always has been true. It has never been a 'fact' that it is flat.


Back to the above.

pentangeli wrote:
I mean, this actually means that "God" is a fact too (scientifically!). It finds integrity in the age old "a hundred million chinese people can't be wrong" maxim, which under a more powerful microscope, suggests that already on shaky foundations (albeit, hypocritically discounting the world's 4 major religions and the percentage of humanity that adheres to them). For example, it was once a fact that the earth was flat. It's not anymore. It rests it's laurels on "Umm, we have nothing better yet". Constant updates are healthy, but it makes you question the validity of advancements even a million years from now. Does this mean we will never evolve? Well evolution is just theory, right? Or is it a fact? So hard to tell!


Yes God is a fact - currently, and also has been in the past. God is something enough people have accepted to act upon God being real - in the future, we have to accept the possibility that the fact of God will be superseded by another fact. At the moment we have 2 opposing facts working against each other - God is real and therefore true and God is unreal and therefore false - both are facts.

Bikerman wrote:
That is because you don't understand what the word 'theory' means - which is again fairly depressing since it is explained with monotonous regularity.
A scientific theory is an explanation for what we see. It isn't a guess or a 'possibility' - it is the best possible explanation given current data. All science is theory and people mistake this for meaning that scientific 'theory' is in some way shaky or likely to change. It is neither.
Evolution is a theory, and it is also 'true' if you want me to use an unscientific word. Evolution is as certain as anything else in science - which is very certain indeed.


Theory - a contemplation or speculation. A well founded theory admits it is a theory and doesn't go so far as to claim it is correct. Theories can be well founded or shaky, yet both are theories. The better the theory, the less likely it will change and the more likely it will be correct - no guarantees though.

Bikerman wrote:
pentangeli wrote:
Love is fact. How? Pain is a fact. How?
Neither are 'facts'. Both are subjective. You could say that 'I am feeling pain' and that might be a fact.


Love is a fact. Pain is a fact.

Bikerman wrote:
pentangeli wrote:
You think this post is incorrect. Is that the truth? All truth is subject to individual perception. It seems true to me. Yet false to you. Maybe I'm bs'ing you. Maybe you think it's the truth and I'm just posting for the frih. Maybe I could just tailgate other posts and paraphrase other people's posts for the same deal. What's true? You decide.
Truth is not subject to individual perception. If something is only observed by one person and cannot be observed by others then it isn't 'true' in anything other than a subjective sense. Science does not deal with subjective truths, it deals with repeatable solid observational facts.


Truth - faithfulness, constancy, steadfast, loyal. In other words truth is something to with we can be faithful, constant, steadfast and loyal. It can be objective or subjective or a combination of both.

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Objectivity, Causality, Sentience. All facts.
Nope. They are not facts at all. A fact is a statement which can be tested.


Yes - a fact can be tested - it can also be held in faith until such time as a newly discovered fact supersedes it.

Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
And a fact is as fallible as the one that replaces it. So was it ever a true fact in the first place? And if it was a true fact, and still is, "truth" is still determined by individual perspective so it's still flawed. True?
No, complete nonsense.


Completely nonsensical to a particular observer or set of observers. I agree with pentangeli - he is, based on the case presented and the original meanings of words as presented by the Oxford dictionary, making statements which are factually true - are they correct? Let's open the debate.
Bikerman
jeffryjon wrote:
Fact - as defined by the Concise Oxford dictionary - italics by me - originally meaning 'an act' , later (in the context of) 'a crime': from Latin 'factum', neuter past particle of 'facere' meaning 'do'.
That is not a definition, that is the etymology.
The DEFINITION is 'a thing that is known or proved to be true'
The word is being used in a philosophical/logical/scientific context not a loose everyday form. In that context it has a precise meaning - as does 'truth'.
Quote:
To reiterate and with addition to my previous explanation of the word 'fact'. It is something which appears sufficiently evident for us to act or take action in thought, word or deed.
No. It is something which has been demonstrated to be correct.
Quote:
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
A "fact" aka (temporary) law" is only a commonly shared (and perhaps critically, an undisprovable) perspective of what is actual.
No it isn't. A fact is not a law - temporary or otherwise. A fact is a singular statement. A law is a general case. A law can be tested and if it fails then it isn't a law, and never was.

Agreed Bikerman, though I'd like to reword the above slightly. When someone claims something is a law and upon testing the claim, it proves not to be a law then it never was - it was simply a claim. We can say that something is claimed as a law and that in itself is a fact, though the fact something is claimed as a law doesn't necessarily mean it is a law.
That change adds nothing to the meaning I defined aside from an incorrect definition of fact in this context.
Quote:
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
I mean, this actually means that "God" is a fact too (scientifically!).
Nonsense.
Changing definitions of words is a human trait, though it's also potentially dangerous. It leads to people arguing the same standpoint, whilst simultaneously believing they're on opposite sides. Both the theists and atheists have a tendency to refer to writings of the past which in some cases date back 100's or even 1000's of years. If we use a modern (mis/)understanding of a word (by that I mean misunderstanding or understanding), whilst quoting old texts, we're in great danger of shooting ourselves in the foot. In the sense that God appears evident to a sufficient number of people to act on that premise, God is a fact, has been a fact for quite sometime and only time will tell whether God remains a fact.
Wrong. That is philosophically indefensible. That people believe in God is a fact. God is NOT a fact.
Quote:
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
It finds integrity in the age old "a hundred million chinese people can't be wrong" maxim, which under a more powerful microscope, suggests that already on shaky foundations (albeit, hypocritically discounting the world's 4 major religions and the percentage of humanity that adheres to them).
This is known as the fallacy ad-populum.If 6 billion people believe that the sun is 400 miles away and only 1 thinks it is approximately 93 million miles away, it remains a fact that the one is correct.
Classic misundertstanding. Correct is just that - it's right, straight, is able to hold itself together and is properly guided. We humans are hopefully on a path tending toward correctness, but can only be sure to attain that straight path if we're constantly open to reassessment of facts.
Wrong. In the context here correct means conforming to fact/truth, free from error.
Quote:
pentangeli wrote:
I mean, this actually means that "God" is a fact too (scientifically!). It finds integrity in the age old "a hundred million chinese people can't be wrong" maxim, which under a more powerful microscope, suggests that already on shaky foundations (albeit, hypocritically discounting the world's 4 major religions and the percentage of humanity that adheres to them). For example, it was once a fact that the earth was flat. It's not anymore. It rests it's laurels on "Umm, we have nothing better yet". Constant updates are healthy, but it makes you question the validity of advancements even a million years from now. Does this mean we will never evolve? Well evolution is just theory, right? Or is it a fact? So hard to tell!


Yes God is a fact - currently, and also has been in the past.
Wrong, see above. The poster says that God is a fact SCIENTIFICALLY. That is just wrong wrong wrong.
Quote:
God is something enough people have accepted to act upon God being real - in the future, we have to accept the possibility that the fact of God will be superseded by another fact.
Fallacy ad-populum again. A fact is objectively verifiably true - SCIENTIFICALLY.
Quote:
At the moment we have 2 opposing facts working against each other - God is real and therefore true and God is unreal and therefore false - both are facts.
Neither are facts.
Quote:
Theory - a contemplation or speculation. A well founded theory admits it is a theory and doesn't go so far as to claim it is correct. Theories can be well founded or shaky, yet both are theories. The better the theory, the less likely it will change and the more likely it will be correct - no guarantees though.
I said SCIENTIFIC theory. Try using your dictionary properly.
A well-tested concept that explains a wide range of observations.
Quote:

Love is a fact. Pain is a fact.
Neither is a fact since neither is information, in the same way that 'black' and 'dog' are not facts because they are not statements which inform. They are concepts which might be used factually or erroneously depending on construction.
Quote:
Truth - faithfulness, constancy, steadfast, loyal. In other words truth is something to with we can be faithful, constant, steadfast and loyal. It can be objective or subjective or a combination of both.
Not in the scientific/logical sense of the word. Truth is unchanging in logical terms - only the perception changes.
Quote:
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
Objectivity, Causality, Sentience. All facts.
Nope. They are not facts at all. A fact is a statement which can be tested.

Yes - a fact can be tested - it can also be held in faith until such time as a newly discovered fact supersedes it.
No it can't otherwise it was never a fact.
Quote:
Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
And a fact is as fallible as the one that replaces it. So was it ever a true fact in the first place? And if it was a true fact, and still is, "truth" is still determined by individual perspective so it's still flawed. True?
No, complete nonsense.

Completely nonsensical to a particular observer or set of observers. I agree with pentangeli - he is, based on the case presented and the original meanings of words as presented by the Oxford dictionary, making statements which are factually true - are they correct? Let's open the debate.
No, you presented an etymology not a definition. In the context here then God is not a fact and neither are the other examples given above.
pentangeli
jeffryjon wrote:


Bikerman wrote:
Quote:
I mean, this actually means that "God" is a fact too (scientifically!).
Nonsense.


Changing definitions of words is a human trait, though it's also potentially dangerous. It leads to people arguing the same standpoint, whilst simultaneously believing they're on opposite sides. Both the theists and atheists have a tendency to refer to writings of the past which in some cases date back 100's or even 1000's of years. If we use a modern (mis/)understanding of a word (by that I mean misunderstanding or understanding), whilst quoting old texts, we're in great danger of shooting ourselves in the foot. In the sense that God appears evident to a sufficient number of people to act on that premise, God is a fact, has been a fact for quite sometime and only time will tell whether God remains a fact.


I was interested in the credibility and therefore the validity of certain scientific claims which espouse themselves as "facts" simply because (as Bikerman reiterated without realizing), they are the best we have. I mean he goes on with the usual scientific posturing:

Quote:
The DEFINITION is 'a thing that is known or proved to be true:'


Albeit after conceding the premise of this rests on the fact that it's "truth" depends on the "fact" that it hasn't been "disproved" yet. Einstein's synchronization in his special relativity theory springs to mind. And you say relativity = law. It's but a theory and full understanding of what theory actually means runs parallel to "fact" in that it's basically just an educated guess a bunch of cling-ons are working really hard to better (and for the record: have, are and will, every single time). Placing God in the same context, you're actually out of a limb. I mean you can close shave with as many Occam's razors as you like Bikerman, it's not going to change anything. God is difficult to disprove. God is scientifically a "fact" (by science's own rationale and benchmarking - although it will never admit to it nor concede that their own logical working actually owe a debt to such a concept. I mean they actually pale in comparison to such a notion). God is impossible to disprove. Now you'll say it's impossible to prove also. But your proof credibility is flawed historically. Your laws and facts have all been disproved so your yardstick and credibility is worthless. When you consider yourself a barefooted hobo making fun of everyone's shoes, you'll understand how I see you.

But not for nothing, my friend, I appreciate your input a great deal in here. Although I have heard the same limited warblings regurgitated a million times over by your crowd. It's like you have to follow the doctrine and there's only so much you're allowed to say. Like you inability to admit to knowledge and experience of sentience, for example. You claim that there is no metaphysical. That there's no soul. Yet you know full well in your heart of hearts (you know that thing that pumps blood around your body?) that this isn't the case. Your mind is a mythical anomaly too right? That doesn't exist. It's just a projection of the brain. A trick of deceit created by the individual? The who? The individual? What's one of them?

You are failing here by attempting to stand council for what is "known". Nobody really knows anything. You 'know' that right? Please tell me you've gotten that far in your studies, at least. You're told a bunch of things by smart folks. You check if they are widely accepted. They are. Have they been disproved? Not yet. There's your truth. And furthermore, to really ice my cake: You care. You break up every single paragraph to address and offer rebuttal to every single word. That's not excessive? It's passionate, in a geeky sort of way, isn't it? I'm not knocking that at all. You care. You care because, well, there's an individual in there somewhere, with a heart and soul and knowledge of self and his own unique personality's likes and dislikes and character comprised of his own indelible humanity, who believes his own truth. I think your truth is pile of horse manure.

And so on the bench of your own inability to see that you prove my title with every post you make, I do rest my case, and bid you good day.
Bikerman
pentangeli wrote:
I was interested in the credibility and therefore the validity of certain scientific claims which espouse themselves as "facts" simply because (as Bikerman reiterated without realizing), they are the best we have. I mean he goes on with the usual scientific posturing:
Quote:
The DEFINITION is 'a thing that is known or proved to be true:'


Albeit after conceding the premise of this rests on the fact that it's "truth" depends on the "fact" that it hasn't been "disproved" yet. Einstein's synchronization in his special relativity theory springs to mind. And you say relativity = law.
Who says so? Not me. Relativity = theory.
Next time you use a GPS then tell me about clock synchronisation and how it is a guess.
Quote:
It's but a theory and full understanding of what theory actually means runs parallel to "fact" in that it's basically just an educated guess a bunch of cling-ons are working really hard to better (and for the record: have, are and will, every single time).
Wrong. It is nothing of a guess - in fact it would be difficult to imagine how one could guess the theory of relativity. Relativity follows logically from Maxwell's equations which ARE laws and have been verified experimentally numerous times.
I would be interested to hear what improvements to relativity you think have been made. The fact that GR is wrong at some level is more or less accepted by most physicists since it is not a quantised theory and the other fantastically successful theory - QM - seems to require quantisation of spacetime if the two are to ever co-exist. There are many contenders for the new combined theory but non of them will mean that observations and calculations made with GR are suddenly wrong, simply that at the smallest levels GR is wrong and requires a broader more inclusive theory. That is little different to what happened to Newton's physics. It is right for most purposes but at the extremes it fails - hence relativity.
Quote:
Placing God in the same context, you're actually out of a limb. I mean you can close shave with as many Occam's razors as you like Bikerman, it's not going to change anything. God is difficult to disprove. God is scientifically a "fact" (by science's own rationale and benchmarking - although it will never admit to it nor concede that their own logical working actually owe a debt to such a concept.
Simply stating something does not make it so. A scientific fact is a piece of information that can be verified/tested objectively. God is no such thing. Any hpypothesis or statement which cannot be tested is not scientific. God is such an hypothesis. It isn't whether it can be proved* or disproved - the fact is that it cannot even be tested.

*How do you propose that a theory can be proved, bearing in mind induction?
Quote:
I mean they actually pale in comparison to such a notion). God is impossible to disprove. Now you'll say it's impossible to prove also. But your proof credibility is flawed historically. Your laws and facts have all been disproved so your yardstick and credibility is worthless. When you consider yourself a barefooted hobo making fun of everyone's shoes, you'll understand how I see you.
Simply asserting is no sort of argument. 'My' laws and facts have not been disproved otherwise they would not be 'my' laws and facts.
Quote:
But not for nothing, my friend, I appreciate your input a great deal in here. Although I have heard the same limited warblings regurgitated a million times over by your crowd. It's like you have to follow the doctrine and there's only so much you're allowed to say. Like you inability to admit to knowledge and experience of sentience, for example. You claim that there is no metaphysical. That there's no soul. Yet you know full well in your heart of hearts (you know that thing that pumps blood around your body?) that this isn't the case. Your mind is a mythical anomaly too right? That doesn't exist. It's just a projection of the brain. A trick of deceit created by the individual? The who? The individual? What's one of them?

a) I did not claim there is no metaphysical - whatever that ungrammatical sentence means...
b) I do not know in any heart since my heart is incapable of knowing. I understand that there is no entity which you call a soul.
c) There is nothing mythical about the mind and of course it exists.
d) It is not a 'trick' - it is an emergent phenomenon of the brain.
e) Clearly it is not created by any individual.
Quote:
You are failing here by attempting to stand council for what is "known". Nobody really knows anything. You 'know' that right? Please tell me you've gotten that far in your studies, at least.
I think I may have progressed a little beyond your page.
Many things are known.
Given the system of natural numbers and taking as axiomatic the Peano postulates then 1+1 = 2.
Quote:
You're told a bunch of things by smart folks. You check if they are widely accepted. They are. Have they been disproved? Not yet. There's your truth. And furthermore, to really ice my cake: You care. You break up every single paragraph to address and offer rebuttal to every single word. That's not excessive? It's passionate, in a geeky sort of way, isn't it? I'm not knocking that at all. You care. You care because, well, there's an individual in there somewhere, with a heart and soul and knowledge of self and his own unique personality's likes and dislikes and character comprised of his own indelible humanity, who believes his own truth. I think your truth is pile of horse manure.
Since you offer nothing but assertion in return then you are welcome to your opinion but it isn't really worth much.
Yes I am an individual - why should I not be? Truth is not a word I would apply to any scientific theory since no theory makes that claim. Theory is the best current model and can always, as far as we know, be improved. Having said that, predictions and results of current theory are constantly tested and constantly verified. When a better theory emerges it will produce those same results, but it will also produce more accurate results at the extremes, where current theory falters.
jeffryjon
Here’s the problem as I see it. We are talking different languages and choosing to call one or the other ‘English’, as opposed to both. To say that God is not a fact if it turns out to be true that God is indeed a fact would be lying to oneself based on a presumption. God is not a fact in your eyes would be a more accurate statement.

To say that the fact that it’s not possible to test whether God is a fact is also a presumption. It may be true to say you’ve studied and enquired extensively and failed to find a methodology that’s allowed you to test one way or the other, though that doesn’t mean God’s existence cannot be tested and proven by an individual. I for one, did exactly that and the proof that God exists being correct didn’t land in my lap from a single experiment – it arrived through thousands of experiments and when I'd gone beyond 2,000 of those experiments I stopped counting. I took a very sceptical view at the whole God ‘thing’ all the way through those experiments. My generalistic observations were as follows:

1) I had to reach a point of sincerity in my search for the truth before ANYTHING began to occur.

2) I relied on my personal experiments and observations of the results instead of anything anyone else had to say. (Totally)

3) I checked and rechecked both the results and the methodologies in the experiments against research protocols.

4) I was equally open to the potential for God to be proven/disproven – and maintained that openness all the way.

5) I was willing to push the experimentation as far as necessary to get an answer one way or the other.

6) Once I had the proof, I was also aware that God decided to prove him/her/itself to me and without that I would have had no chance of obtaining that proof.

7) I was aware that sincere and continuing effort to find the truth in this matter was a vital ingredient in finding that truth.

8 ) The ‘path’ of finding that truth was far more testing and difficult than I could possibly have anticipated.

9) I sought the truth and found the truth.

10) Finding the truth cost be everything but my life over a period of 10 years – everything.

11) Even though, there were those who tried to convince me to give up my futile search and accept that God was real on the basis that proof was unnecessary, I didn’t.

12) Even when others tried to assure me that the path to truth would reward me many times over for the sacrifices made in sincerely following that path, I had no way of knowing that to be true – now I do.

13) Whilst following that path, I came to realise that all religions and the books that come with them would never be able to sufficiently answer my questions – none of them. Using the metaphor of an ocean, I had to jump in and take the risk that I would ‘drown’ in the process.

14) In hindsight, I realised that if I’d known how difficult the journey to find the truth was, I would never have taken the first step.

15) Thank God and only God that I did – God is fact – and as with many things in life, the only way to test that is find out for yourself - no matter what it takes - there are no shortcuts.
Indi
This is a challenge all the real philosophers out there: Prove that the title of this thread is false using a single sentence. (Yes, it's possible.)

Bonus points: name the type of proof you use to do it.
Bikerman
Well, I am using the particular definitions of words which I understand to apply in the scientific context which was defined by the poster him/herself and I don't think those definitions admit of your usage of them.
I was careful to say that God exists is not a fact and God does not exist is not a fact. Clearly one must be a fact, but we have no way of determining which, and until we have then any assertion of facthood is simply opinion.

My statement that God cannot be tested as a hypothesis is, I believe, accurate. To test something first you have to know something about it. Since it can (and will) be claimed that God has no physical manifestation, then I cannot see how any scientific test could be performed. You cannot test that which has no physical existence or interactions.
Certainly particular notions of God can be (and have been) tested. Thus the medieval notions of God's creation, being taken as dogmatic necessities, when falsified also falsified that particular notion of God. Since, however, God is a movable feast I maintain that the concept, rather than a particular notion, of God is inherently untestable. Any apolologist can always play the ultimate religious 'trump' card - the miracle. Thus any refutation offered can be defined as the result of a miracle, or set of miracles.

As regards your 'proof' of God's existence - clearly I cannot accept that as any such thing.
I would need details of experimental technique, measuring and reporting protocols etc to even consider it seriously. If indeed you do have a valid method of proof then it would be probably the most significant discovery in history, so you will have to forgive me for being extremely sceptical.

The idea that the only way to find out is to do so for yourself seems erroneous to me. The notion that this is true of many things strikes me as incorrect - i cannot think of a single testable hypothesis that requires my personal verification in order to test. Indeed the whole idea of 'personal' discovery is profoundly problematic since it offers, and can offer, no protection against individual mistake, misconception or delusion. This is, of course, one reason why we normally insist that any experiment be reproduced independently before being taken at face value.
Bikerman
Indi wrote:
This is a challenge all the real philosophers out there: Prove that the title of this thread is false using a single sentence. (Yes, it's possible.)

Bonus points: name the type of proof you use to do it.

How about simple deduction?

If hypothesis E is perceived by observer A as true and perceived by observer B as untrue, and if it was correct to say that truth is subject to individual perception, then this would mean that hypothesis E was both untrue and true at the same time, rendering the label 'true' effectively meaningless.

(PS I can do better, this is just a teaser/appetiser Smile )
jeffryjon
Bikerman wrote:
This is known as the fallacy ad-populum.If 6 billion people believe that the sun is 400 miles away and only 1 thinks it is approximately 93 million miles away, it remains a fact that the one is correct.


It seems the dilemma is much the same. In your example, the 1 is right and everyone else is wrong. You quote the above on the same premise that I base my statement. In the same sense that I know what I'm saying about God existing is a fact, the theoretical 1 who knew about the real distance of the sun as a fact started out on his own, yet you still allow his stance to be a fact. I'm not saying what I know is a commonly accepted fact (though among certain groups it is), just that it's a fact.
Bikerman
jeffryjon wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
This is known as the fallacy ad-populum.If 6 billion people believe that the sun is 400 miles away and only 1 thinks it is approximately 93 million miles away, it remains a fact that the one is correct.


It seems the dilemma is much the same. In your example, the 1 is right and everyone else is wrong. You quote the above on the same premise that I base my statement. In the same sense that I know what I'm saying about God existing is a fact, the theoretical 1 who knew about the real distance of the sun as a fact started out on his own, yet you still allow his stance to be a fact. I'm not saying what I know is a commonly accepted fact (though among certain groups it is), just that it's a fact.

No - it is categorically different. The number of people holding the 'belief' is not relevant. It could be a billion or it could be zero. The statement is a fact because it can be empirically and independently verified in many different ways.
jeffryjon
Bikerman wrote:
jeffryjon wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
This is known as the fallacy ad-populum.If 6 billion people believe that the sun is 400 miles away and only 1 thinks it is approximately 93 million miles away, it remains a fact that the one is correct.


It seems the dilemma is much the same. In your example, the 1 is right and everyone else is wrong. You quote the above on the same premise that I base my statement. In the same sense that I know what I'm saying about God existing is a fact, the theoretical 1 who knew about the real distance of the sun as a fact started out on his own, yet you still allow his stance to be a fact. I'm not saying what I know is a commonly accepted fact (though among certain groups it is), just that it's a fact.

No - it is categorically different. The number of people holding the 'belief' is not relevant. It could be a billion or it could be zero. The statement is a fact because it can be empirically and independently verified in many different ways.


well errrh no. The wording as presented by you was that the one person thinks the sun is approx 93 million miles away - it just happens, based on our current knowledge that we can now prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt - just because the person thinks the right answer doesn't mean (s)he can prove it to the next guy.
Bikerman
Well then let me clarify - the point was a response to the ad-populum fallacies and was intended to illustrate that the number of people who believe something to be true has no bearing on the actual truth. If it is true then it is so regardless of the number believing it to be so.
Clear now?
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
Indi wrote:
This is a challenge all the real philosophers out there: Prove that the title of this thread is false using a single sentence. (Yes, it's possible.)

Bonus points: name the type of proof you use to do it.

How about simple deduction?

If hypothesis E is perceived by observer A as true and perceived by observer B as untrue, and if it was correct to say that truth is subject to individual perception, then this would mean that hypothesis E was both untrue and true at the same time, rendering the label 'true' effectively meaningless.

(PS I can do better, this is just a teaser/appetiser Smile )

Ooo, clever.

Totally not what i was thinking of - in fact, that's quite a lateral-thinking way to approach the problem.
jeffryjon
Bikerman wrote:
Well then let me clarify - the point was a response to the ad-populum fallacies and was intended to illustrate that the number of people who believe something to be true has no bearing on the actual truth. If it is true then it is so regardless of the number believing it to be so.
Clear now?


Yes I was clear from the very beginning. The number of people who believe something to be true (in the sense of correct) has no bearing on what is true (in the sense of correct). If it turns out, as I know it will eventually, that others come to know God as 'existing' being a statement of correctness, it matters not how many people currently say it is not correct.

The word true is related to the word truce and vice versa. Again, that old Oxford Dictionary stuff. I say we call a truce on this one as I can't see a way to progress it.
Bikerman
But you have said that you have an experimental protocol/design which proves the existence of God. You can't just leave that hanging, surely?
jeffryjon
Bikerman wrote:
But you have said that you have an experimental protocol/design which proves the existence of God. You can't just leave that hanging, surely?


No you're right, though I don't wish to cloud any research anyone else may choose to carry out. I'll reiterate the initial approach and leave the rest to be decided by whatever protocols the reader wishes to use in their own research.

1) Be sincere to the truth - absolutely sincere - and maintain that sincerity to the very end. I assure you there is an end, though to state what that end is would defeat both the purpose and inhibit your chances of ever being sure.

2) Rely on the results of your own personal experiments - only them. As sincerity is an essential ingredient. We can never be sure that someone else has been sincere - that includes the fact that you can't be sure in any absolute sense about my sincerity.

3) Check and recheck both the results and the methodologies in the experiments against research protocols. Keep a log and keep rechecking for as long as it takes.

4) Be equally open to the potential for God to be proven/disproven – and maintained that openness all the way.

5) Be willing to push the experimentation as far as necessary to get an answer one way or the other.

6) Be prepared to be tested and face difficulties far exceeding what you could possibly anticipate.

9) Seek the truth and only the truth.

10) Be prepared to lose everything – everything. I can't stress that strongly enough.

11) When those who try to convince you to give up your futile search and accept that God is real on the basis that proof is unnecessary, don't.

12) When those who try to convince you to give up your futile search and accept that God is not real on the basis that proof is unnecessary, don't.

13) Whilst following the path, be prepared to realise that all religions and the books that come with them will never be able to sufficiently answer your questions – none of them. The only way to find out is to find out for yourself.

14) Remember - always remember - there are no shortcuts.

The door is open, though it is you that must walk through.
Bikerman
But this is re-iteration. What I am interested in is what experiments you did. You mention research protocols and methodology - can you elaborate?
pentangeli
Bikerman wrote:
You cannot test that which has no physical existence or interactions.


So you cannot test the whole entire universe then? And everything in it? Because according to you, it doesn't exist because it never came to be. What you can do though, is take a look at the forest instead of the trees. There is a really simple question here waiting to be asked. It's so blatantly obvious, like losing your specs and looking all over for them when they are on the end on your nose. Or like my Irish grandmother used to say, "If it was a dog it'd bitecha!" It's that close and in your face. It's called the universe. It's the most wonderful mistake you've ever seen. I mean no artist, architect or engineer could even replicate it let alone conceive it, with it's mountains and oceans and species and cloud chambers and butterflies wings, life itself, and that's just planet earth. Amazing mistake it is. Yet here you are, Mr Egotistical little scientist bopping around on it patting himself on the back and calling himself intelligent. You're actually just an insignificant little spec on God's greenery and I'm about to tell you why.

Anything that is must have to came to be. Can we agree on that, at least? That if something is there, it is actually there? I mean I could get arguments from zen buddhists about this, but hopefully not from a scientist. So if a universe is there (is that considered a fact by you?) would it be fair to presume (state) that it's temporal origin insists that it was created? I'm consciously attempting steering well clear of causality here, because I know it's way too vast and chaotic to fit in your cute little petri dish.

It's not even Aristotelian. It's much simpler than that. If the world is there and possesses motion (by your big bang theory *LOL* or whatever the latest update on that is) then it requires a beginning and motioner. I mean Einstein's theory of special relativity agrees with me here. Grunbaum's scientific proponents agree with me. It's just you who doesn't. So when I say "your laws" you can bet I am using ironic singularity. You seem to be a law unto yourself mate. Not even your cronies have your back on this one.

When I was like... six, I had enough about to ask what lit the Big Bang even though it was an utterly puerile and juvenile question, here I am decades later, still unsatisfied with an answer.

Seemingly, in science, whatever begins to exist doesn't require a cause. Occam, Darwin, Dawkings. Not interested! But hey, I want a scientific test conducted on this "hypothesis". Preferably one that doesn't create this wacky Big Bang idea with no parental array to house the code. You see, that returns an error. Not found.

Things do not come to be without a definite cause. So scientifically, removing this "magic white bearded man in the sky" or the Spaghetti Monster or however you view Creationism, can we for a minute call God and [whatever lit the Big Bang] the same thing? To (pardon the pun) play devil's advocate just for the sake of this argument? I'll like that tested. Well that cannot be tested. Well okay. I'd like that explained then. Well that cannot be explained. Well okay, I'd like to leave the cinema and stop watching your rubbish movie that begins in the middle then. I would like to see the opening titles, or at least hear what your version is of them. Again, your reluctance to offer one because "we cannot test it" does not allow you to say anything about anything. God is now the default. You understand? Because look at this way. Me saying that anything that exists must have came to be is plausible and reasonable, right? Then you don't exist and neither does your theory (fact/law) because you never came to be. You do not exist to offer an explanation. How's that for the effect of final cause?

Science tells us that time began and the universe came to exist. Test it or stop talking about the most probable cause (a creation) existing being irrational and untestable and therefore not of interest because right now, prima facie justification is not smiling at you.

Here's the last bit where I really piss you off again...

"Something from nothing" is some ex-nihlo nonsense I don't have the patience to endure, I'm afraid. So whatever started anything, by your thinking and mine, whatever was capable of existing outside of the time-space continuum, outside of the universal "laws", before time and the universe even existed, must, by definition, not bound to it or slave to it or answerable to it. So you see, right there...

God.

Allow me to finish by quoting my favorite scientist.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" - Sherlock Holmes.
Bikerman
pentangeli wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
You cannot test that which has no physical existence or interactions.


So you cannot test the whole entire universe then? And everything in it? Because according to you, it doesn't exist because it never came to be.
Another thing I am supposed to have said? Ho hum....
Quote:

What you can do though, is take a look at the forest instead of the trees. There is a really simple question here waiting to be asked. It's so blatantly obvious, like losing your specs and looking all over for them when they are on the end on your nose. Or like my Irish grandmother used to say, "If it was a dog it'd bitecha!" It's that close and in your face. It's called the universe. It's the most wonderful mistake you've ever seen. I mean no artist, architect or engineer could even replicate it let alone conceive it, with it's mountains and oceans and species and cloud chambers and butterflies wings, life itself, and that's just planet earth. Amazing mistake it is. Yet here you are, Mr Egotistical little scientist bopping around on it patting himself on the back and calling himself intelligent. You're actually just an insignificant little spec on God's greenery and I'm about to tell you why.
Egotistical? Nah ... I know a fraction of a fraction of what many know and even less of a fraction than I would like to....I have no bragging rights.
Quote:
Anything that is must have to came to be. Can we agree on that, at least? That if something is there, it is actually there? I mean I could get arguments from zen buddhists about this, but hopefully not from a scientist. So if a universe is there (is that considered a fact by you?) would it be fair to presume (state) that it's temporal origin insists that it was created? I'm consciously attempting steering well clear of causality here, because I know it's way too vast and chaotic to fit in your cute little petri dish.
Not really. You go from a true statement to a possible statement. Yes, that which is, is. No, that does not imply it was therefore created, since the word 'created' implies a creator. The universe came into it's present state at a defined time, that much i would agree with. Don't worry about confusing me with causality - give it your best shot and I'll try to keep up.
Quote:
It's not even Aristotelian. It's much simpler than that. If the world is there and possesses motion (by your big bang theory *LOL* or whatever the latest update on that is) then it requires a beginning and motioner. I mean Einstein's theory of special relativity agrees with me here. Grunbaum's scientific proponents agree with me. It's just you who doesn't. So when I say "your laws" you can bet I am using ironic singularity. You seem to be a law unto yourself mate. Not even your cronies have your back on this one.
Is that it? The 'first cause' argument? I'm disappointed. GR doesn't agree at all for the simple reason that GR breaks down at the singular state of the early universe and therefore has nothing to say about causation or origin. I've not read much Grunbaum but I'd be surprised if he didn't dismiss the first cause argument in short order.
Basically it is a non argument.
Quote:
Seemingly, in science, whatever begins to exist doesn't require a cause. Occam, Darwin, Dawkings. Not interested! But hey, I want a scientific test conducted on this "hypothesis". Preferably one that doesn't create this wacky Big Bang idea with no parental array to house the code. You see, that returns an error. Not found.

Things do not come to be without a definite cause. So scientifically, removing this "magic white bearded man in the sky" or the Spaghetti Monster or however you view Creationism, can we for a minute call God and [whatever lit the Big Bang] the same thing? To (pardon the pun) play devil's advocate just for the sake of this argument? I'll like that tested. Well that cannot be tested. Well okay. I'd like that explained then. Well that cannot be explained. Well okay, I'd like to leave the cinema and stop watching your rubbish movie that begins in the middle then. I would like to see the opening titles, or at least hear what your version is of them. Again, your reluctance to offer one because "we cannot test it" does not allow you to say anything about anything. God is now the default. You understand? Because look at this way. Me saying that anything that exists must have came to be is plausible and reasonable, right? Then you don't exist and neither does your theory (fact/law) because you never came to be. You do not exist to offer an explanation. How's that for the effect of final cause?
Well, firstly things DO come to be without a 'definite cause' - all the time, constantly, all around. The seething mass of particle-anti-particle pairs that we laughingly call vacuum of space has no 'definite cause'. Nothing 'causes' the positron-electron pairs to pop in and out of existence, there is no deterministic mechanism or causal agent - they just do, in a probabilistic manner.

More importantly, God doesn't address the supposed argument either. All you do is cop-out of the argument and say it doesn't apply to God. The valid question 'What caused God' is therefore brushed-over with a sleight of hand, references to infinities and other nonsense that is somehow not acceptible for the universe but is absolutely fine for an infinitely complex entity.....shurely shome mishtake....Smile
Quote:
Science tells us that time began and the universe came to exist. Test it or stop talking about the most probable cause (a creation) existing being irrational and untestable and therefore not of interest because right now, prima facie justification is not smiling at you.
No it doesn't actually. It tells us that OUR spacetime came into existence about 13.7 billion years ago. It says nothing much about any other spacetimes or universes....
Quote:
Here's the last bit where I really piss you off again...
I bet you don't....
Quote:
"Something from nothing" is some ex-nihlo nonsense I don't have the patience to endure, I'm afraid. So whatever started anything, by your thinking and mine, whatever was capable of existing outside of the time-space continuum, outside of the universal "laws", before time and the universe even existed, must, by definition, not bound to it or slave to it or answerable to it. So you see, right there...

God.
And once again you then completely fail to ask your supposedly killer questions of this God and just blithely accept that he/she/it was always thus...this is a fundamental cop-out. The universe MUST have a creator but God is excused. The Universe MUST have an external origin but God is excused. This is not an answer, it is simply special pleading of a very unconvincing type.

In fact something from nothing is not only possible, it is routinely observed.
Take 'nothing', borrow some energy and wham - you have a positron and an electron. If you then quickly annihilate them, before mother nature notices the 'borrow', then the books still balance. This is going on all around, all the time - some call it the 'quantum foam'.

There are several possibilities for the original singularity that kicked-off our spacetime/universe.

a) It just came into being in exactly the same way that quantum particle pairs do all the time. Energy on one side of the scales and gravity on the other - together summing to zero. The universe is therefore simply a quantum fluctuation in the otherwise eternal nothingness, simply a bigger version of the quantum positron-electron pair but with energy/mass and gravity being the +1 and -1 which together sum to zero. I can demonstrate why gravity can be considered a negative to energy/mass' positive if you like - but it will take another page or two....I'll leave it open.

b) The BB singularity was actually a result of a collision of higher dimensional 'branes' existing in an 11-Dimensional multiverse which may or may not have a 'beginning'.

c) The BB singularity was actually a Black Hole in another universe. (This is my personal favourite hypothesis because it is wonderfully elegant). In this scenario new universes are 'born' when a Black Hole forms a 'tear' in spacetime in a parent universe. We would expect, therefore, universes that form Black Holes to be 'selected for' in an evolutionary sense. Universes that support the formation of Black Holes breed (form child universes) and pass on their 'genes' (the values of the fundamental physical constants) to their children. Thus universes capable of forming Black Holes proliferate. Now, it just so happens that those universes capable of forming Black Holes are also capable of supporting life, since BHs can only form where matter is stable, so life itself is 'evolved into existence', before it in turn evolves into intelligent life....This is Lee Smolin's Evolutionary Universe hypothesis and I consider it rather beautiful. It predicts that intelligent life is bound to evolve - it must, given sufficient time. As for the origin of the first Parent Universe - there is actually no requirement for such an origin. This hypothesis can be sustained infinitely, so it could be that the multiverse has 'always been' without need of a first or prime mover. There is nothing contradictory in that, although personally I favour an 'origin' theory which probably resembles the quantum singularity hypothesis.

There are other possibilities, but the thing that they all have in common is that they actually address the first cause argument rather than simply sidestepping it like Theism/Deism does....
pentangeli
Quote:

There are other possibilities, but the thing that they all have in common is that they actually address the first cause argument rather than simply sidestepping it like Theism/Deism does....


Funny though, how all your possibilities stated consist of universal properties that haven't been created yet. There's no brushing over here on my side, but if that's what you want to call it, so be it. I see the same thing in what you're saying. To a degree. Our arguments are similar in that you saying that certain things do come to be (via borrowed energy, that hasn't been originated yet, umm, ho hum what?) I think I'll borrow a tenner from my future son. First I gotta meet his mother. But hey, that's alright because he will be born someday and we've observed that humans have a tendency to get jobs and earn money. I mean I'm being sardonic, but come on, all of your reasoning depends on matter than came after the event. I'm simply saying, no more, no less, that anything that started the process could not have been accountable to a universe that hadn't even formed yet. That's reasonable right? Plausible maybe? Furthermore, even if this was the case, this wouldn't be the universe, it would be an offspring one, one which would still need a similar cause to begin that. This is double causality now. Confused yet? Remember those painted wooden dutch ornaments dolls that get smaller each time you take one out? I digress, you're giving examples of scientific studies which would allow something to be creating from nothing (this does not mean it requires a "creator" like you said, talk about tautology to yourself, fella) it means it needs to have an origin and this chicken has no egg (or vice versa) unfortunately, you seem to think that the chicken's habitual attributes explain the egg. Or to be more concise, you seem to think that the fried egg or omlette (or even the turd floating through the sewer) explains the egg, because you are using examples of scientific "laws" which apparently didn't even form for millions of years?!? This is crazy talk. It's up there with the fact that the Universe has reached neither a heat death nor a "big crunch" after billions of years. And to me, being completely removed from the scientific protocol, it's right up there with, "God is not accountable to anything" Actually it's not, when you think about it. The definition of a God is just that and could only be that. That's what God would have to be. That's what anything which created/began/originated the universal and temporal time itself, would have to be. And we "know" time was "began". So as you can tell, I'm somewhat of a laymen, but in terms of scientific workings, logic and chronology, consistency is on my side. You're still barefoot making fun of my wacky shoes!

What began time?
[/quote]
Indi
pentangeli wrote:
Allow me to finish by quoting my favorite scientist.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" - Sherlock Holmes.

It's actually rather hilarious that your favourite "scientist" is Sherlock Holmes, because not only is he as fictional as the other things you believe in, his creator - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle - also believed in fairies. ^_^;
pentangeli
Indi wrote:
pentangeli wrote:
Allow me to finish by quoting my favorite scientist.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" - Sherlock Holmes.

It's actually rather hilarious that your favourite "scientist" is Sherlock Holmes, because not only is he as fictional as the other things you believe in, his creator - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle - also believed in fairies. ^_^;


I'm rather fond of all science / fiction writers. <-- Samurai slash.

But hey, at least he didn't believe in Monkey Magic and Planet of The Apes like you supposedly 'intelligent' folk. All we need now is the entire works of Shakespeare and a couple of typewriters. We have a thesis to submit after this walking upright opposable thumb tea party.
Indi
pentangeli wrote:
Indi wrote:
pentangeli wrote:
Allow me to finish by quoting my favorite scientist.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth" - Sherlock Holmes.

It's actually rather hilarious that your favourite "scientist" is Sherlock Holmes, because not only is he as fictional as the other things you believe in, his creator - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle - also believed in fairies. ^_^;


I'm rather fond of all science / fiction writers. <-- Samurai slash.

But hey, at least he didn't believe in Monkey Magic and Planet of The Apes like you supposedly 'intelligent' folk.

Actually, he did. ^_^; (Just check out The Lost World. He botches the details evolution, of course - most non-scientists do - but he certainly believed it happened.)

In other words, the man believed in fairies and psychics... but creationism?... that was just too far-fetched even for him. ^_^;
pentangeli
Quote:
he certainly believed it happened


Ah, that one man's truth being another man's apeth thing again. I can't think why I keep getting hearkened back to this concept. I mean, in this, of all threads!

We're talking about about Opium addict who hung out (pardon the pun) with Houdini, a latent racist and nazi sympathizer, whom not only flirted with freemasonry and secret society lodges, also indulged in group sexual ritual worship, also infamously plowed his hard-earned into a piece of scientific evidence so photorealistically convincing, it looks like it was knocked up in MS Paint in about two minutes. I mean he was a Doyle alright. But it's refreshing how he's now become an authority on temporal causality and ex-nihilo philosophy simply because you've illustrated that he's dafter than a box of frogs. With logic like that you should become a cosmologist or something.

This debate is court jester's fool's errand. The only thing which still holds any indisputable credibility in this back and fourth is the title, as it gets proved time and time again (not that "time" as we know it has any sort of impart or dispatch or anything). I mean chalk is better than cheese. I said so. I think science needs to acknowledge the metaphysical and unquantifiable in the best way it can without hurting itself too badly. That's what I think. These are my honest thoughts. I do believe religion can listen more to science, although to be fair, it has, a great deal in modern times and made many allowances for great scientific discovers. Gallelo, for example, once under Vatican house arrest for heresy, now championed by Holy See researchers. Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest thinkers, theologians and scientists of any time. Debts still owed to him in all disciplines. Einstein, believer, to some degree, Spinoza God botherer, ostracized by the religious over zealous cult of science while he still walked. Stuff like...

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Didn't go down to well. He's saying, I'm blind, but you're lame. Let's guide each other and find something. Reasonable? Hell no! Why not?

I mean it takes two to tango and you're not entirely blameless. Aquinas is an example of harmony. As is Merton. I would love to see science grow a pair, is all I'm saying. Although we are talking two entirely different languages and the belief of "what are you doing here, get out!" is prevalent in both, I think in terms of gaining a true and complete understanding of the complete human natural and intellectual experience of life as we know it, one just needs to explore the metaphysics as well as the physics otherwise, it's just formulaic characterless robotics and is limiting it's knowledge and intellect. That Sherlock Holmes thing was a joke. If Hawking said it though, you'd all be riding it like the rodeo. Bruce Lee is actually my favorite scientist, philosopher and theologian of all time (no joke).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnrUSezusw4

Please watch if you get a minute, mechanical men.

Back to chalk and cheese:

I was inferring that with just a few more pages we may actually evolve and get something of substance in this thread...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

I mean if the Darwinians keep banging away long enough... But it would take a long time (perhaps even longer the transition from finger to wing! or even as long as a dead chemical to a new life form (lol) ie: eternity. aka: never), I'm saying, it'd have to be complete serendipity (like our amazingly intricate weather cycle and oceans and gravitational feilds on this amazing spinning globe suspended in absolute limbo in an expanse so vast that we could never fully explore - stupidly convenient and incredible serendipity like that... and so I'm not holding my breath.

I mean from a scientific point of view, the "my dad is bigger than your dad" conjecture is truly awe inspiring. It truly is. And although it's really impressive and educational, I'm gonna have to pass.

Jerry's Final Thought: Don't limit yourselves. You're very smart people. Don't be stupid enough to think you're not passing the buck on a massively important and critical aspect of your being and meaning. Why limit yourself to follow a herd, doctrine, dogma or textbook? Overly concerned with what is taught, accepted, valid, correct, "known". How about less back-patting and self assuring citing and shifting your attention and talents to what is not known? Galaxies are waiting for us. Your potential is infinite. [/quote]
deanhills
pentangeli wrote:
Jerry's Final Thought: Don't limit yourselves. You're very smart people. Don't be stupid enough to think you're not passing the buck on a massively important and critical aspect of your being and meaning. Why limit yourself to follow a herd, doctrine, dogma or textbook? Overly concerned with what is taught, accepted, valid, correct, "known". How about less back-patting and self assuring citing and shifting your attention and talents to what is not known? Galaxies are waiting for us. Your potential is infinite.
I'm sure this is not from Krishnamurti, as you have your own original thoughts, one can see that (I obviously don't have that ability, as I have just quoted someone again Smile ). But this portion of your posting did remind me of him. I admire all people who can follow their own direction and think "originally", which obviously means they have to be super sorted out in themselves instead of following a herd or a dogma and/or attacking another herd or dogma to define themselves.

Quote:
Once the speaker was travelling with some people in a car, there was a chauffeur driving and I was sitting beside him. There were three gentlemen behind discussing awareness very intently and asking me questions about awareness. Unfortunately at that moment the driver was looking somewhere else and ran over a goat - the three gentlemen were still discussing awareness - and yet were totally unaware, unconscious, that they had run over a goat. And the chauffeur was not in the least concerned.
Source: Krishnamurti
Indi
pentangeli wrote:
The only thing which still holds any indisputable credibility in this back and fourth is the title, as it gets proved time and time again

Actually, the title is wrong, too. i'm just waiting for someone who's serious about philosophy to come along and point out why. i issued a challenge earlier to do it in a single sentence. No takers, yet.
jeffryjon
Indi wrote:
pentangeli wrote:
The only thing which still holds any indisputable credibility in this back and fourth is the title, as it gets proved time and time again

Actually, the title is wrong, too. i'm just waiting for someone who's serious about philosophy to come along and point out why. i issued a challenge earlier to do it in a single sentence. No takers, yet.


The title cannot possibly be wrong - it's the title. It may not be perceived as a very good title, but it is a title. If we say the title is wrong then on what basis is the claim that it's wrong justified. If I say the sky is black and place that in a title then we can debate it. It would make for an interesting debate with both sides of the argument putting forward their points to justify the correctness or incorrectness of the statement. The sky is black - there it is - it's a fact - it's also an argument that could be taken up within the context of this thread - or a thread of its own. Should the statement be used as the title of a new thread or should it be debated here in this one? Another debate that also belongs here and somewhere else. One thing existing in at least 2 places. Oh dear, now we're into the space-time continuum thing. Another debate that belongs here and somewhere else. And where is that 'here' and where is that somewhere else? Is it on the server? Is it on a multiple of servers? Is it on each one of our computers as we partake? Is it in each and every mind of everyone who reads the posts? Where is here? Wow, so many questions from a single statement. Is the title wrong? No. Is the title other than you'd currently like it to be? I can't be sure. You placed some time ago and somewhere else. The truth may or may not have changed now.
Bikerman
As stated previously, the truth, in the philosophical use of the word, isn't contingent on an individual understanding or perception.
The title, insofar as it is an assertion, is wrong.
jeffryjon
Bikerman wrote:
As stated previously, the truth, in the philosophical use of the word, isn't contingent on an individual understanding or perception.
The title, insofar as it is an assertion, is wrong.


Though since no truth - even a philosophical truth is an absolute truth, then perception must come into the equation somewhere. Many times, I've seen things put forward as truth and yet they are still challenged. The assumption by one party being that the other is wrong, though as most of us admit, we are not omniscient. Neither do we transcend all time. Such being the case, we're not capable of holding all the data, facts and information that may be relevant to define a truth in any absolute sense. Trying to do so is a noble cause and may lead us nearer to an absolute truth with every step, yet all the accepted truths we use to move from one step to the next are partial truths in themselves. We are, by our very nature as human beings, limited in our abilities and the only way to resolve the issue is to become omniscient and develop the ability to transcend all time. By definition of many, those who sincerely seek the truth are on a quest to become 'as gods'.
Bikerman
No, all that this means is that some truths are not absolute/complete (many are) - it doesn't mean that truth is contingent on perception.
jeffryjon
Bikerman wrote:
No, all that this means is that some truths are not absolute/complete (many are) - it doesn't mean that truth is contingent on perception.


So are we accepting that some truths are not absolute truths and yet they are still truths - at least within the confines of the parameters which make them true?
Bikerman
Yes, in the sense that any description of them is incomplete.
I can say that it is true that an apple will fall if you drop it. That is a partial truth because it doesn't apply unless there is gravitation and we don't yet have a complete description of gravitation.
I can be more precise and say that an apple dropped from location x will fall if I drop it, but I can probably conceive of some circumstance under which it would not...
jeffryjon
So it's theoretically possible at least that even when something has been widely accepted as an absolute truth, there may be factors of which we are yet unaware that could render that truth as not being an absolute truth.
Bikerman
jeffryjon wrote:
So it's theoretically possible at least that even when something has been widely accepted as an absolute truth, there may be factors of which we are yet unaware that could render that truth as not being an absolute truth.

No. There are simply expressions of a truth which may be incomplete/partial.
jeffryjon
Bikerman wrote:
jeffryjon wrote:
So it's theoretically possible at least that even when something has been widely accepted as an absolute truth, there may be factors of which we are yet unaware that could render that truth as not being an absolute truth.

No. There are simply expressions of a truth which may be incomplete/partial.


I'm struggling to get my head around this one Chris. Just help me gain a little clarity, because if you're saying what you're statement reads, it makes absolutely no sense to me. I know this is tedious but I'm asking you to help me understand what you're really saying, just to be sure I'm in no doubt.

What I read into your response to my statement is:

It's NOT possible that when something has been widely accepted as an absolute truth (in the form that it is widely accepted - or for that matter in its long-handed form) - it NOT possible that there could be ANY factors of which we are NOT currently aware that could render that truth as being no longer an absolute truth.
Bikerman
Try this
Truth is absolute insofar as something is either true or not, and this does not depend on what people believe.
Truth cannot easily be expressed in language precisely so often a spoken/written 'truth' will be partial, ambiguous or inaccurate. Where such truths can be expressed in a less ambiguous language (maths) then this problem disappears.

Example.
The sum of the angles of a triangle in a euclidean space is 180 degrees.
True
It matters not one wit whether the whole world believes it is 170 degrees or 2000 degrees (for an agreed definition of a degree as 1/360th of a circle) - the TRUTH is 180 degrees.

Sientific theories are NOT true - hence we don't use the word because it is inappropriate - like saying a design for a building is true. Theories are models. They may be exceedingly good and accurate models that return accurate results, make accurate predictions and cannot be falsified, but they are never the thing which they model - the map is not the territory.
jeffryjon
Bikerman wrote:
Try this
Truth is absolute insofar as something is either true or not, and this does not depend on what people believe.
Truth cannot easily be expressed in language precisely so often a spoken/written 'truth' will be partial, ambiguous or inaccurate. Where such truths can be expressed in a less ambiguous language (maths) then this problem disappears.

Example.
The sum of the angles of a triangle in a euclidean space is 180 degrees.
True
It matters not one wit whether the whole world believes it is 170 degrees or 2000 degrees (for an agreed definition of a degree as 1/360th of a circle) - the TRUTH is 180 degrees.

Sientific theories are NOT true - hence we don't use the word because it is inappropriate - like saying a design for a building is true. Theories are models. They may be exceedingly good and accurate models that return accurate results, make accurate predictions and cannot be falsified, but they are never the thing which they model - the map is not the territory.


As such can we also say that a truth cannot truly be claimed as an absolute truth until it has been tested in any and every possible scenario, which as far as I know mankind has yet to accomplish. I'll use the triangle as an example.

A triangle is a 2 dimensional depiction of a truth. If we look at the triangle from any angle other than directly in front/directly behind it the internal angles appear to change. We could say that the internal angles will still add up to a total of 180 degrees, granted - we could say that - but how can we be sure before looking at the 2 dimensional image from all possible angles. How can we be sure - that what we saw from the angle of perspective is indeed a triangle? Spin the triangle around and at some points of perspective we'll have a straight line - the angle of perspective now shows we have a straight line. Don't worry, I'm still with your argument, in that you can say the triangle is still a triangle even if we can't see it as such - but is it?

Somebody in an experiment, limited by perspective, sees a set of triangles floating around in a mass. To limit the chances of being mistaken, the observer spins the sample around and still sees triangles. There we have it - it's sure - it's an absolute truth and is accepted as such. People come to challenge it and say "eh, but, what if several observers stand at different periphery points and observe it simultaneously - will we still see triangles? They do and sure enough the observation holds true. Now it's an absolute truth to the power of the number of observers increasing the chance that it's absolute truth and the absolute truth of the observation becomes accepted as absolute fact. The fact IS absolute and so is the truth that supports it - right? We KNOW it to be true.

Now, I'll ask you to be flexible in your assessment of what I'm about to say and the reason for that is I'm also confined, just like you, to this rather limited communication system using written words.

1,000 years after the accepted absolute truth was established, mankind develops a much more powerful microscope. This microscope is 10,000,000,000,000 times more powerful than anything that previously existed and they decide to re-examine the fact. Do they find the same result? Maybe. Do they find that the triangle(s) were actually 3 independent lines held in approximate triangulation by another force/mechanism? Maybe. Do they find that although the lines were previously thought to meet each other that in fact they don't touch? Maybe. Do they find that the 3 lines reorientate themselves to face the observer(s) due to some effect the observers have on the environment being observed? Maybe. Do they find that in fact the reorientation gives an 2 dimensional illusion of the observed particles allowing us to believe they're triangular when in fact, it's simply a line bent in 2 places with the ends pointing toward the same point, thus meaning that there is no triangle with internal angles adding to 180 degrees UNLESS you look from a particular 2 points of perspective? Maybe.

So now we have a theory in mathematical surety that works in absolute terms within the realms of mathematics, that probably does, though is not guaranteed to reflect the reality of the situation - there is still (and as far as I'm concerned always should be), a gate of opportunity left in place by admitting that any truth cannot be guaranteed in any absolute sense when making observations about the real world/universe. That gate of opportunity provides a safety net that can assist mankind if something becomes apparent in our future that throws any/all of our deeply entrenched assumptions into doubt. Without that safety net, what we currently call science is possibly in danger of falling into the same trap as man-made religions and becoming a set of superstitions.
Bikerman
jeffryjon wrote:

As such can we also say that a truth cannot truly be claimed as an absolute truth until it has been tested in any and every possible scenario, which as far as I know mankind has yet to accomplish. I'll use the triangle as an example.
That depends. Sometimes a proof can be formulated without the need to test all cases. Normally this would be a mathematical proof.
Quote:
A triangle is a 2 dimensional depiction of a truth. If we look at the triangle from any angle other than directly in front/directly behind it the internal angles appear to change. We could say that the internal angles will still add up to a total of 180 degrees, granted - we could say that - but how can we be sure before looking at the 2 dimensional image from all possible angles. How can we be sure - that what we saw from the angle of perspective is indeed a triangle? Spin the triangle around and at some points of perspective we'll have a straight line - the angle of perspective now shows we have a straight line. Don't worry, I'm still with your argument, in that you can say the triangle is still a triangle even if we can't see it as such - but is it?
Because it is in Euclidean space, as I said.
Quote:
Somebody in an experiment, limited by perspective, sees a set of triangles floating around in a mass. To limit the chances of being mistaken, the observer spins the sample around and still sees triangles. There we have it - it's sure - it's an absolute truth and is accepted as such. People come to challenge it and say "eh, but, what if several observers stand at different periphery points and observe it simultaneously - will we still see triangles? They do and sure enough the observation holds true. Now it's an absolute truth to the power of the number of observers increasing the chance that it's absolute truth and the absolute truth of the observation becomes accepted as absolute fact. The fact IS absolute and so is the truth that supports it - right? We KNOW it to be true.
No. You cannot proove a truth in that way - that is inductive logic and can never reveal absolutely that somethning is true.
Quote:
Now, I'll ask you to be flexible in your assessment of what I'm about to say and the reason for that is I'm also confined, just like you, to this rather limited communication system using written words.

1,000 years after the accepted absolute truth was established, mankind develops a much more powerful microscope. This microscope is 10,000,000,000,000 times more powerful than anything that previously existed and they decide to re-examine the fact. Do they find the same result? Maybe. Do they find that the triangle(s) were actually 3 independent lines held in approximate triangulation by another force/mechanism? Maybe. Do they find that although the lines were previously thought to meet each other that in fact they don't touch? Maybe. Do they find that the 3 lines reorientate themselves to face the observer(s) due to some effect the observers have on the environment being observed? Maybe. Do they find that in fact the reorientation gives an 2 dimensional illusion of the observed particles allowing us to believe they're triangular when in fact, it's simply a line bent in 2 places with the ends pointing toward the same point, thus meaning that there is no triangle with internal angles adding to 180 degrees UNLESS you look from a particular 2 points of perspective? Maybe.
No becauise the truth of Pythagoras is not inductive it is deductive - it applies no matter what. You are describing the scientific method for formulating an hypothesis and then a theory. As I said, scientific theory is not 'truth'. Mathematical proof IS truth. You can look as hard as you like with any instrument you like. It is still 180 degrees. What you are looking at is not a triangle, just a human representation. The triangle is a mathematical construction and is, as such, perfect.
Quote:
So now we have a theory in mathematical surety that works in absolute terms within the realms of mathematics, that probably does, though is not guaranteed to reflect the reality of the situation - there is still (and as far as I'm concerned always should be), a gate of opportunity left in place by admitting that any truth cannot be guaranteed in any absolute sense when making observations about the real world/universe. That gate of opportunity provides a safety net that can assist mankind if something becomes apparent in our future that throws any/all of our deeply entrenched assumptions into doubt. Without that safety net, what we currently call science is possibly in danger of falling into the same trap as man-made religions and becoming a set of superstitions.
You are still confusing scientific theory with truth. Truth is deductive. It is possible only through deductive systems which are, by definition, tautologous and closed. Mathematics and logic are the two areas where you will find such truths.

I have already said that scientific theory is not truth in the same way that a plan of a building is not truth. The word does not apply.

The reason that science cannot fall into the same trap as religion is that science includes self-checking - it requires it. Religion eschews it. Anyone at anytime can challenge the most solid theory in science. Every theory MUST be challenged before it becomes accepted. It is completely dissimilar to religion.
jeffryjon
So if science is an amalgamated awareness of all things studied within the realms of that science, by your definition, it cannot express anything as an absolute truth - unless it uses logic/mathematics as an attempt to prove/express it as an absolute truth - which you've now stated is abstract from any reality outside of mathematics/logic. We've created a circular argument.

Euclidean space (Sourced from Wikipedia - currently not under dsipute).

In classical Greek geometry, the Euclidean plane and Euclidean three-dimensional space were defined using certain postulates, and the other properties of these spaces were deduced as theorems.

In mathematics, a theorem is a statement which has been proven on the basis of previously established statements, such as other theorems, and previously accepted statements, such as axioms.

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident, or subject to necessary decision. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

(End of quotes taken from Wikipedia.)

Postulates are things which are postulated. Postulate means 'ask' - in other words 'please accept what I'm saying/requesting' which is pretty much the basis of any attempt to prove something. Postulant, as in a person postulating is a person asking to be admitted into a religious order, (presumably because (s)he trusts that the religious order will offer something preferable to what would be experienced outside of the religious order).

If (and only if) the postulation is accepted, we have a basis for continued argument which could choose to use mathematics and/or logic as the mechanisms to arrive at conclusions. It still starts however with something that is accepted rather than proven and the only way to get the proof is to develop a singular/series of logical mathematical argumentation stemming from the original acceptance. It's a glorified attempt to prove 'as you believe then so it is'.
Bikerman
jeffryjon wrote:
So if science is an amalgamated awareness of all things studied within the realms of that science, by your definition, it cannot express anything as an absolute truth - unless it uses logic/mathematics as an attempt to prove/express it as an absolute truth - which you've now stated is abstract from any reality outside of mathematics/logic. We've created a circular argument.

No, there is no circularity in my argument - only in specifying truth. Science makes no claim to absolute truth, as I said earlier. Science makes models of the universe. Those models are 'theory'.
Quote:
Postulates are things which are postulated. Postulate means 'ask' - in other words 'please accept what I'm saying/requesting' which is pretty much the basis of any attempt to prove something. Postulant, as in a person postulating is a person asking to be admitted into a religious order, (presumably because (s)he trusts that the religious order will offer something preferable to what would be experienced outside of the religious order).
Continually trying to work out the meaning of words used in specific senses from their root etymology is time-wasting. I don't care what the word meant in 2nd century Rome. I know Latin and Greek enough to be able to work out the root of many words but most of them will have changed in meaning and that applies double when the words are used specifically in maths/science. There are plenty of on-line dictionaries you can use if you don't know what the word means in the 21st century in the context of maths/science.
Postulate means 'Take as Given' when used in maths/science.
'This is fundamental so accept it without proof' would be a long-hand version.
Quote:
If (and only if) the postulation is accepted, we have a basis for continued argument which could choose to use mathematics and/or logic as the mechanisms to arrive at conclusions. It still starts however with something that is accepted rather than proven and the only way to get the proof is to develop a singular/series of logical mathematical argumentation stemming from the original acceptance. It's a glorified attempt to prove 'as you believe then so it is'.

It isn't a glorified anything. If you had read what I have been saying a bit more carefully you will have seen words like tautologous and closed. In other words you cannot assert that X is true unless you have deduced it from W, and so on back down the chain to the original axioms, A, B, C and D. That is what maths is - a closed system of logic which starts with some basic axioms and builds everything up from there. Once an expression is written, no new information is added - the problem is tautologous - every following step is deduced from the previous one.

There is no a-priori reason that the universe should conform to mathematical equations - they are entirely a human construction. But the thing is - it does. It turns out that truths in mathematics have very close analogues in the real universe and that apparently 'pure' mathematiics is reflected in many real-world systems. If there is a God he/she is a mathematician.

In fact there are perfectly good reasons why there is this correspondence. Both the universe and maths start with simple 'axioms'. The universe's axioms are the fundamental constants - the speed of light, the charge of an electron...and so on. The axioms in maths are the rules for generating real numbers, the rules for addition/subtraction etc. Given the right translation then it is not surprising to me that there is frequently correspondence.

Anyway, that is how formal logic and maths deals with truth and why science has nothing to do with it.

That doesn't mean that scientific theory is not true in the usual meaning of the word (ie it corresponds to reality and can be independently checked), it just means that the correspondance means it is a model - it is not the thing being modelled.

You seem to think you have stumbled on some massive weakness in science.....it is quite amusing..people HAVE thought about this before you know....- from the greeks onwards...and I have been saying to you exactly this for several postings....

There are ALWAYS axioms - fundamental things which we have to accept.
Descartes tried to get it down to one single axiom - I think Therefore I Am. That is not watertight, however, and therefore will not do.


Now - there is a whole other debate to be had about whether induction can be said to be true, but that is for another day.
jeffryjon
Bikerman wrote:
You seem to think you have stumbled on some massive weakness in science.....it is quite amusing..people HAVE thought about this before you know....- from the greeks onwards...and I have been saying to you exactly this for several postings....


I'm happy to let things rest as they are now. Just a clarification though - I'm not thinking I've stumbled on any massive weakness in science. The purpose of the latest debate in this thread was in support of the original claim - that's all it was.
Bikerman
Well, the original point - that truth is contingent on perception - is still wrong. The basic flaw is that it assumes that theory = truth. If that were the case then it would have merit as an argument. This is, of course, the central reason that scientists DON'T claim that theory=truth. Theory is work in progress. Science works by trying to knock-down theory rather than starting with some axiomatic truths. Science is based on empiricism - if such and such is how we observe the universe to behave, and this conflicts with Theory A, then Theory A is wrong and has to go. Thus it is a constant process of testing, re-evaluating, improving, re-testing. That is what is unique about science as a mode of thought/exploration - not only does the scientist admit that he might be wrong, it is assumed that he/she IS wrong and at no point can he/she ever claim to be right...just the best currently available.
Some see this as a weakness. On the contrary it is the supreme strength of science.
Indi
jeffryjon wrote:
The title cannot possibly be wrong - it's the title. It may not be perceived as a very good title, but it is a title. If we say the title is wrong then on what basis is the claim that it's wrong justified. If I say the sky is black and place that in a title then we can debate it. It would make for an interesting debate with both sides of the argument putting forward their points to justify the correctness or incorrectness of the statement. The sky is black - there it is - it's a fact - it's also an argument that could be taken up within the context of this thread - or a thread of its own. Should the statement be used as the title of a new thread or should it be debated here in this one? Another debate that also belongs here and somewhere else. One thing existing in at least 2 places. Oh dear, now we're into the space-time continuum thing. Another debate that belongs here and somewhere else. And where is that 'here' and where is that somewhere else? Is it on the server? Is it on a multiple of servers? Is it on each one of our computers as we partake? Is it in each and every mind of everyone who reads the posts? Where is here? Wow, so many questions from a single statement. Is the title wrong? No. Is the title other than you'd currently like it to be? I can't be sure. You placed some time ago and somewhere else. The truth may or may not have changed now.

This response is incoherent and nonsensical.

Of course the title can be wrong: it is an assertion, it is not a tautology, therefore by definition it can be either true or false.

And the title represents a single-sentence statement of the foundation of the entire argument of one group of people on the topic of this thread. If it's proven wrong (which it can be, in a single sentence, and i'm still waiting on someone to take care of that), then that will completely undermine one of the positions being taken on the topic.
Bikerman
I liked my previous refutation Smile, but here's another sideways look at it (I think I know how you would refute it, but i want to leave that open for the moment).

Since 'all truth' includes the truth of the assertion, this means that the assertion must be universally perceived as true in order to BE true, but that in turn would make the assertion redundant.
pentangeli
Bikerman wrote:
Well, the original point - that truth is contingent on perception - is still wrong. The basic flaw is that it assumes that theory = truth. If that were the case then it would have merit as an argument. This is, of course, the central reason that scientists DON'T claim that theory=truth. Theory is work in progress. Science works by trying to knock-down theory rather than starting with some axiomatic truths. Science is based on empiricism - if such and such is how we observe the universe to behave, and this conflicts with Theory A, then Theory A is wrong and has to go. Thus it is a constant process of testing, re-evaluating, improving, re-testing. That is what is unique about science as a mode of thought/exploration - not only does the scientist admit that he might be wrong, it is assumed that he/she IS wrong and at no point can he/she ever claim to be right...just the best currently available.
Some see this as a weakness. On the contrary it is the supreme strength of science.


That's not what it states at all. MC Escher also has beef with your mathematical absolution. The title suggests that individual perception is a filter. It's a title that makes a claim that seems plausible that you're trying in vain to disprove- to no avail. It does what it says on the tin. You used the example of the 180 degree being indisputable "truth" in the context of there's no deciding factors that allow for it to be perverted, but there are, not that retardation of this accepted "truth" is even that relevant to what is actually being said. But anyway, there's no measuring system in this world that is 100% accurate because even machines programmed to construct measuring instruments are both designed and constructed by man and ergo/also inaccurate themselves. The "truth" of it must be 180 degrees is but a theory because no absolutely exact angle exists in nature let alone the unnatural world. It's basically a truth on a bit of paper, an idealism, and therefore a theory that will never be converted in true actual being, and even it was (which it cannot, there, there-abouts, under the finest most accurate microscope showing all the particles of a furry feathered lump of the straightest line or angle) we're talking "line of best fit" compromises, so the line of best fit for the title would be hardly as untrue.

Being that it's a paradox you so called insightful folk haven't even cottoned onto yet.

Besides this, and your apple not falling in several scenarios off the top of the head (see my "ball throwing" jests in the maths thread), there is no truth which cannot not be contested. The title is siting pretty right now, imo. Probably because it doesn't just have one paradox. It has millions. You're right, it's untrue because by your perception it's untrue. Correct! And you know what? I disagree, so try again!

The only truth on this earth that is infallible is that all truth on this earth is fallible.


tingkagol
Indi wrote:
If it's proven wrong (which it can be, in a single sentence, and i'm still waiting on someone to take care of that), then that will completely undermine one of the positions being taken on the topic.


*edit*
If all truth is subject to individual perception,
*edit*

...it would then follow that if the individual ceases to exist, then 'all truth' will cease to exist as well. (?)

Just trying.
pentangeli
tingkagol wrote:
If the individual ceases to exist, then 'all truth' will cease to exist as well?


No doubt the trees falling in the forest will still be harping on about them.
pentangeli
[quote="tingkagol"]
Indi wrote:
If it's proven wrong (which it can be, in a single sentence, and i'm still waiting on someone to take care of that)


You know what they say, "If you want something doing right....".

No time for love, Doctor Jones. Hit it with your best shot.

..and Good luck. Very Happy
Bikerman
pentangeli wrote:
That's not what it states at all.
Yes it is.
It says that truth is 'subject to' individual perception. I used the phrase 'contingent on'. The two are reasonable synonyms.
Quote:
MC Escher also has beef with your mathematical absolution. The title suggests that individual perception is a filter.
No it doesn't. If perception is merely a filter then it cannot affect the truth of the proposition, only the perception of that truth. If something is 'subject to' something else, then it is in some way dependant upon that something else. That was precisely the argument being made and precisely what I refuted.
Quote:
It's a title that makes a claim that seems plausible that you're trying in vain to disprove- to no avail. It does what it says on the tin. You used the example of the 180 degree being indisputable "truth" in the context of there's no deciding factors that allow for it to be perverted, but there are, not that retardation of this accepted "truth" is even that relevant to what is actually being said. But anyway, there's no measuring system in this world that is 100% accurate because even machines programmed to construct measuring instruments are both designed and constructed by man and ergo/also inaccurate themselves.
Which I said in the same posting...
Quote:
The "truth" of it must be 180 degrees is but a theory because no absolutely exact angle exists in nature let alone the unnatural world.
No, maths doesn't do 'theory'. It does proofs and theorems. The fact that no perfect triangle exists in nature is not relevant because, as I said, a triangle is a mathematical construction which allows for a closed system of logic to define it precisely. It is true, therefore, that a euclidean triangle has angles which sum to 180 degrees, exactly as I said.

Theorem: If ABC is a triangle then <)ABC + <)BCA + <)CAB = 180 degrees.

Proof:
B'...........C................A'
------------------------------------------------------------
.............@
...........@...@
.........@@@@@
-------------------------------------------------------------
.....A....................B

<)BAC = <)B'CA and <)ABC = <)BCA'
<)B'CA + <)ACB + <)BCA' = 180 degrees
Therefore <)ABC + <)BCA + <)CAB = 180 degrees

(and before any mathematicians point out that to be compeletely rigorous I should consider the contradiction - yes I know, but my ASCII art skills are very limited Smile )
jeffryjon
Bikerman wrote:
I liked my previous refutation Smile, but here's another sideways look at it (I think I know how you would refute it, but i want to leave that open for the moment).

Since 'all truth' includes the truth of the assertion, this means that the assertion must be universally perceived as true in order to BE true, but that in turn would make the assertion redundant.


Yes I like that too. Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy
pentangeli
And I'm saying 180 degrees doesn't actually exist due to the "truth" of it being an idealism formulated via using inaccurate apparatus. There is no such thing as 100% 180 degrees. There never has been and never will be. So I think I affixed the word "theory" correctly in that respect.

And that wasn't what the title stated because it wasn't "stating" (contrary to popular belief. Popular belief being individual perspective manifesting itself as truth). It was a projection of my individual perception on what truth is, tailor made, some may perceive to trigger the individual perception to individually perceive perceptions about what individual perceptions are, from an individual perspective. hah!

And there is a filter. The filter allows you to perceive it, not perceive it, perceive it as false or perceive it as true. But true and false are subject to individual perception too, so your measuring apparatus is flawed also. What can I say? It's an imperfect world. Is that an indisputable truth? 1.6180339887. The renaissance artists viewed that imperfect irregularity as perfection. I like girls with over-sized rears. Imperfection can be viewed as perfection. Is beauty really in the eye of the beer-holder? You decide. It's all the same bag.

You say "subject to" like the thing exists, echoing tingkagol above, if nobody is there to witness or doesn't exist is nobody is there to witness it, even if somebody is there to witness it. Reminds me of that episode of The Simpsons where they stopped looking at the giant monsters and they all died. The age old trees and the forest argument, in space nobody can hear you scream, etc. I dare say that me believing in God is subject to God. How much piety do you really place on "truth of proposition" because with each new page of this thread, you're getting decidedly more Christian, Chris.

Quote:
euclidean triangle has angles which sum to [what he thinks is] 180 degrees


Amended, and, "true-r", but truth apparently doesn't have -ers and plus you'll argue till you're blue in the face that it is exactly 180 degrees in that case, I'd have to say that I think that all truth is subject to individual perception. I mean I'd state it, or alternatively edit the thread title with an appropriate prefix eluding to it being my opinion but I'm kind of enjoying you scientist folk getting your knickers in a twist about everything you believe in being proved to be inaccurate (theoretically, of course).
Bikerman
Sorry but you are just simply wrong.
No 'apparatus' is involved. I have drawn it simply to illustrate.
Concepts exist despite having no physicality. They can be explained and passed on and are independant of the individual, ergo they exist.

Your amendment is superfluous since it doesn't matter what any individual thinks. Anyone famiar with Euclid can repeat the same proof and the proof will always work, regardless of 'belief', since it is completely rigorous. It doesn't matter what I 'think' 180 degrees is, since a degree is precisely defined and not subject to my interpretation.

PS - nothing I 'believe' has even been called into serious question yet, let alone 'proved wrong'.
pentangeli
Bikerman wrote:
Sorry but you are just simply wrong.
No 'apparatus' is involved. I have drawn it simply to illustrate.
Concepts exist despite having no physicality. They can be explained and passed on and are independant of the individual, ergo they exist.

Your amendment is superfluous since it doesn't matter what any individual thinks. Anyone famiar with Euclid can repeat the same proof and the proof will always work, regardless of 'belief', since it is completely rigorous. It doesn't matter what I 'think' 180 degrees is, since a degree is precisely defined and not subject to my interpretation.

PS - nothing I 'believe' has even been called into serious question yet, let alone 'proved wrong'.


Here's a snapshot of the paper you'd attempt to "prove" Euclid's "theory" upon:

http://paperproject.org/semgallery/images/silkATP2500x2.jpg

I imagine the protractor and pencil lead looks a lot more hectic. But since he lived in 300 BC, I imagine he would have used fabric, wood, or stone instruments and carved the stuff up with a chisel or piece of bark or something. Vorsprung durch Technik. How scientific. I would say that the apparatus you say is 'not involved' - in the conception of the concept, testing the concept and proof of such a concept, pretty much clarifies that 180 degrees doesn't even exist. 100% or otherwise. I could draw up a concept of UFO using similar idealism. Hell, I could even worship a God using similar integrity. It matters not that the thing is flawed from the outset, like say, ooh, I dunno, a big bang theory with no cause. I mean you're all about testing proofs right? Where's the proof? Besides an incredibly zoomed out illustration of what looks kinda sorta right? Repeating it over and over doesn't validate it, as you've made no bones about inadvertently proving already in here. It's not rigorous by the way. It's based on inaccuracy. It's a house built on shaky foundations. It's my opinion that it does matter what [Euclid] thought 180 degrees was, because that in turn determines what you think it is because what you think (according to that) is just another branch in a tree of lies, similar to big bangs, evolutions and my God complex. Alas, it not mattering what you think in terms of it still being truth is also synonymous with individual perception as my inability to make such statements about 'trees of lies' depends on both your will to believe or disbelieve anything Euclid tells you, and your acknowledgment of my opinion of what your opinion or lack thereof is of not having an opinion that you've clearly already stated you do have. In simpler terms, your individual perception of Euclid's concept 'not mattering' still proves the title, perhaps even more than it would even if he asked for your direct validation. Even if you directly opposed what Euclid proposed, you'd be the negation of this so called "truth" giving it a "false" to even define itself by. Even if you were Euclid, you'd be patronized by this very model of actuality. So in effect, if I didn't say it was garbage, it wouldn't even stand true to you, because you'd have no definition to define true by. So there you see, the science of truth and the truth of science, unabridged.
Bikerman
You don't get it do you?
You don't need ANY aparatus. You don't need a pencil. You don't need a pen. You don't need paper - or anything else.
The proof is not based on measurement, it is based on deductive logic. If A then B then C. You can do it all in your head without ever drawing a single line.
Thus there is no inaccuracy or problem of measurement because we are working with concept in logic which are either TRUE or FALSE.
We can define a degree as the angle created when a circle is divided into 360 equal segments. Again there is no measurement needed and therefore no measurement inaccuracy.
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
I liked my previous refutation Smile, but here's another sideways look at it (I think I know how you would refute it, but i want to leave that open for the moment).

Since 'all truth' includes the truth of the assertion, this means that the assertion must be universally perceived as true in order to BE true, but that in turn would make the assertion redundant.

Bingo.

If all truth were subject to individual perception, then "all truth is subject to individual perception" cannot be universally true, which makes the assertion wrong.

The technique used is proof by contradiction.
jeffryjon
Indi wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I liked my previous refutation Smile, but here's another sideways look at it (I think I know how you would refute it, but i want to leave that open for the moment).

Since 'all truth' includes the truth of the assertion, this means that the assertion must be universally perceived as true in order to BE true, but that in turn would make the assertion redundant.

Bingo.

If all truth were subject to individual perception, then "all truth is subject to individual perception" cannot be universally true, which makes the assertion wrong.

The technique used is proof by contradiction.


Huh, uh wah!!!!! Where's the contradiction? Since when is a redundancy a failure to exist? It simply makes it no longer necessary until/unless of course the perception is reassessed by someone in the light of new knowledge. I guarantee in such a situation, those who wish to defend a fact will soon re-employ the original assertion. So I no longer consciously assert my perception that I can walk - the assertion is redundant, no longer required - I still perceive.
Bikerman
Indi wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I liked my previous refutation Smile, but here's another sideways look at it (I think I know how you would refute it, but i want to leave that open for the moment).

Since 'all truth' includes the truth of the assertion, this means that the assertion must be universally perceived as true in order to BE true, but that in turn would make the assertion redundant.

Bingo.

If all truth were subject to individual perception, then "all truth is subject to individual perception" cannot be universally true, which makes the assertion wrong.

The technique used is proof by contradiction.

LOL...I have to admit I was a bit lucky with that one - I thought you were going for a different line of refutation.
I'll take it, though Smile
tingkagol
I'm curious though as to what refutation you thought Indi was aiming for...
Indi
jeffryjon wrote:
Indi wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I liked my previous refutation Smile, but here's another sideways look at it (I think I know how you would refute it, but i want to leave that open for the moment).

Since 'all truth' includes the truth of the assertion, this means that the assertion must be universally perceived as true in order to BE true, but that in turn would make the assertion redundant.

Bingo.

If all truth were subject to individual perception, then "all truth is subject to individual perception" cannot be universally true, which makes the assertion wrong.

The technique used is proof by contradiction.


Huh, uh wah!!!!! Where's the contradiction? Since when is a redundancy a failure to exist? It simply makes it no longer necessary until/unless of course the perception is reassessed by someone in the light of new knowledge. I guarantee in such a situation, those who wish to defend a fact will soon re-employ the original assertion. So I no longer consciously assert my perception that I can walk - the assertion is redundant, no longer required - I still perceive.

The contradiction is spelled out right there in front of you. If "all truth is subject to individual perception" is a "truth" (assuming proposition A is true), then it would be subject to individual perception, so the statement "all truth is subject to individual perception" could not be a "truth" (result: proposition A is false). Assuming proposition A is true results in proposition A being false, therefore proposition A cannot be true. Proof by contradiction.

There is no "redundancy". There is no talk of something "not existing". And everything else you said is gibberish.
jeffryjon
Indi wrote:
jeffryjon wrote:
Indi wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I liked my previous refutation Smile, but here's another sideways look at it (I think I know how you would refute it, but i want to leave that open for the moment).

Since 'all truth' includes the truth of the assertion, this means that the assertion must be universally perceived as true in order to BE true, but that in turn would make the assertion redundant.

Bingo.

If all truth were subject to individual perception, then "all truth is subject to individual perception" cannot be universally true, which makes the assertion wrong.

The technique used is proof by contradiction.


Huh, uh wah!!!!! Where's the contradiction? Since when is a redundancy a failure to exist? It simply makes it no longer necessary until/unless of course the perception is reassessed by someone in the light of new knowledge. I guarantee in such a situation, those who wish to defend a fact will soon re-employ the original assertion. So I no longer consciously assert my perception that I can walk - the assertion is redundant, no longer required - I still perceive.

The contradiction is spelled out right there in front of you. If "all truth is subject to individual perception" is a "truth" (assuming proposition A is true), then it would be subject to individual perception, so the statement "all truth is subject to individual perception" could not be a "truth" (result: proposition A is false). Assuming proposition A is true results in proposition A being false, therefore proposition A cannot be true. Proof by contradiction.

There is no "redundancy". There is no talk of something "not existing". And everything else you said is gibberish.


Indi, either overnight or the last few days, my intelligence levels have dropped dramatically or what you said is the contradiction. I can see however, that with this limited media of a written word forum, I cannot show you adequate evidence without yet another VERY lengthy reply and in this case much longer than I've written before. Find yourself a truth and test it to the nth degree - someone, somewhere will have an equally solid counterargument - and that's yet another perceived truth (mine). Chris already showed that even pure logic relies on axiom - something accepted as self-evident - evident, meaning plain-to-see - a perception - (seemingly) obvious - a forgone conclusion due to the fact that nobody can be bothered to argue with it - a closing of the mind to any other possibility than the accepted axiom - an absence of argument about something -enough individuals holding their minds in agreement about their individual perception - "yes I agree - let's see what we can derive from this." That's how we get things done in this world - 2 or more gathering in a single name and doing wonderful and seemingly endless things - it's very useful - though the only absolute about it lies in the resolution accepting the axiom - and only as long as the resolution remains in play.
Bikerman
The question is therefore are the axioms reasonable? In the case of logic then I would say that yes, they are reasonable. In the case of religion then we are asked to accept a lot of axioms which are deeply problematic.
How should we test our axioms for reasonableness? Well, one good way is that they should correspond to what we see around us. If our axioms lead to predictions/outcomes which are never observed in the universe then they are not likely to be much use for examining that universe.
Another good test is that the axioms should not lead to a self-contradictory outcome. Again, the axioms of logic do not do so whereas the axioms of most religions do so in spades and then we require theology to explain how the apparent contradictions are not really contradictions.
jeffryjon
Yes Chris, I agree with your last post here, except in that even a religious axiom could make something seemingly so irrational to most of us (including many within the religion) seem perfectly rational to those who've been raised in a religion to believe it in a very literal sense. This could be especially true when the vast majority in a given area are raised that way with little or no access to the outside world. The Indian army where I live, encourage their officers to study all religions so they can understand where the 'enemy' are coming from and possibly use that as leverage if they catch any. The axiom in this case being both the strength and weakness of the enemy.
Bikerman
jeffryjon wrote:
Yes Chris, I agree with your last post here, except in that even a religious axiom could make something seemingly so irrational to most of us (including many within the religion) seem perfectly rational to those who've been raised in a religion to believe it in a very literal sense. This could be especially true when the vast majority in a given area are raised that way with little or no access to the outside world. The Indian army where I live, encourage their officers to study all religions so they can understand where the 'enemy' are coming from and possibly use that as leverage if they catch any. The axiom in this case being both the strength and weakness of the enemy.

Which is exactly why the scientific method is so powerful and successful. You cannot get away with that approach in science. Sure, it is possible to carry it off for a while - and some have. We have all heard of cold fusion and I could cite many other cases where the scientific community has swung-in behind a false or unproven assertion. Eventually, however, the built-in self-checking nature of science will reveal such mistakes/cons.
pentangeli
Indi wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
I liked my previous refutation Smile, but here's another sideways look at it (I think I know how you would refute it, but i want to leave that open for the moment).

Since 'all truth' includes the truth of the assertion, this means that the assertion must be universally perceived as true in order to BE true, but that in turn would make the assertion redundant.

Bingo.

If all truth were subject to individual perception, then "all truth is subject to individual perception" cannot be universally true, which makes the assertion wrong.

The technique used is proof by contradiction.


Which itself also paradoxically proves it correct because you think you've found an inaccuracy in it, finding it untrue, both simultaneously proving it "untrue" and thus constantly inadvertently providing the whole entire basis for it being absolutely correct, case sensitively to the letter. When are you factual-philosophy oxymorons going to realize that your perceptions that are formed in opposition to this statement are and will always be it's strongest asset? I dunno. Try agreeing with it or something crazy like that. Take my word for it. Drain it's only true natural resource. Starve it. It's like the only question that never be eternally be answered, "Why?" because you just keep it alive eternally by repeating it over and over. "Why?" Because such and such... "Why?" Because that means..."Why?" Jeez just stop asking "why". *Silence*, *Crickets*, *Monsters under the bed disappear* You try to lend a dude a helping hand... The only way this piece of perception itself can be proved incorrect is if you don't even acknowledge it.
pentangeli
Bikerman wrote:
You don't get it do you?
You don't need ANY aparatus. You don't need a pencil. You don't need a pen. You don't need paper - or anything else.
The proof is not based on measurement, it is based on deductive logic. If A then B then C. You can do it all in your head without ever drawing a single line.
Thus there is no inaccuracy or problem of measurement because we are working with concept in logic which are either TRUE or FALSE.
We can define a degree as the angle created when a circle is divided into 360 equal segments. Again there is no measurement needed and therefore no measurement inaccuracy.


con·cep·tu·al·ism (kən-sĕpˈcho͞o-ə-lĭzˌəm)
noun

1. Philosophy. The doctrine, intermediate between nominalism and realism, that universals exist only within the mind and have no external or substantial reality.

Sorry, Bikerman.
Bikerman
pentangeli wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
You don't get it do you?
You don't need ANY aparatus. You don't need a pencil. You don't need a pen. You don't need paper - or anything else.
The proof is not based on measurement, it is based on deductive logic. If A then B then C. You can do it all in your head without ever drawing a single line.
Thus there is no inaccuracy or problem of measurement because we are working with concept in logic which are either TRUE or FALSE.
We can define a degree as the angle created when a circle is divided into 360 equal segments. Again there is no measurement needed and therefore no measurement inaccuracy.


con·cep·tu·al·ism (kən-sĕpˈcho͞o-ə-lĭzˌəm)
noun

1. Philosophy. The doctrine, intermediate between nominalism and realism, that universals exist only within the mind and have no external or substantial reality.

Sorry, Bikerman.
Sorry for what? This is simply reinterating what I have already said - that conceptual forms like triangles have no substantive existence. So what? I've already said, many times now, that maths and closed systems of formal logic are where you get 'truth', not in the 'real physical world'. It doesn't change the fact that the angles of a Euclidean triangle sum to 180 degrees, and that that is TRUE. So, even if I was a conceptualist this presents nothing new in the debate and certainly doesn't invalidate the point I have been making....
pentangeli
Bikerman wrote:
pentangeli wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
You don't get it do you?
You don't need ANY aparatus. You don't need a pencil. You don't need a pen. You don't need paper - or anything else.
The proof is not based on measurement, it is based on deductive logic. If A then B then C. You can do it all in your head without ever drawing a single line.
Thus there is no inaccuracy or problem of measurement because we are working with concept in logic which are either TRUE or FALSE.
We can define a degree as the angle created when a circle is divided into 360 equal segments. Again there is no measurement needed and therefore no measurement inaccuracy.


con·cep·tu·al·ism (kən-sĕpˈcho͞o-ə-lĭzˌəm)
noun

1. Philosophy. The doctrine, intermediate between nominalism and realism, that universals exist only within the mind and have no external or substantial reality.

Sorry, Bikerman.
Sorry for what? This is simply reinterating what I have already said - that conceptual forms like triangles have no substantive existence. So what? I've already said, many times now, that maths and closed systems of formal logic are where you get 'truth', not in the 'real physical world'. It doesn't change the fact that the angles of a Euclidean triangle sum to 180 degrees, and that that is TRUE. So, even if I was a conceptualist this presents nothing new in the debate and certainly doesn't invalidate the point I have been making....


But it does validate Christianity. It also contradicts the scientific and Oxford Dictionary definitions (although both very different) of what "truth" is. What I'm saying here, Bikerman, and don't get me wrong, I do appreciate your input and lack of inclination to use those button pressing powers you harness, haha, but you haven't got a friend in the world on this standpoint. There's just no credible source of validating integrity that agrees with you, linguistically, semantically, theoretically or even logically, since you place such "truth" in logic, a mere suggestion to the mind that only ever succeeds in 'ringing' true (hence, the immovable object at the top of the thread). Allow me to reiterate:

Wiki (written by a contributor, no doubt, with a non biased yet extremely inescapable individual perception):

Quote:

Truth can have a variety of meanings, such as the state of being in accord with a particular fact or reality, or being in accord with the body of real things, real events or actualities.[1] It can also mean having fidelity to an original or to a standard or ideal. In a common archaic usage it also meant constancy or sincerity in action or character.[1] The direct opposite of truth is "falsehood", which can correspondingly take logical, factual or ethical meanings.


Pretty much: the set in stone, actuality, reality, existence, body etc. Note: the gratis definition of a falsehood: pretty much exactly what you're trying to pass off as a truth. I mean it's only logical that it should mean that, right? haha

Read through the page there and see how many of the greatest scientists, mathematicians, theologians, philosophers, god bothers and atheists alike all seem to have my back on this one. I mean even Nietzsche agrees with me. Ffs! Never thought I'd herald the day when the prince of darkness was saying the same stuff.


Dictionary.com (not exhaustive, nor authoritarian, but decent enough):

Quote:


the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2.
conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3.
a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4.
the state or character of being true.
5.
actuality or actual existence.


Again, all emphasis placed on existence of artifact or being, physically or in terms of tangibility. Truth or fact is touch and feel. Maybe seeing is believing. Maybe as a proprietor of the doctrines of maths and physics this belies the truth and fact of you allowing for the existence of a God. Or a conceptual truth like that. The mind is a wonderful thing. Yours appears especially powerful in terms of perception. Selective as it gets.

I mean I don't want to resort to semantics here, because it's basically me attempting to twist your perception of what you hold true, like you've being doing with me because those minds that contributed to your unquestionable intellect have done that to you, a vicious circle if you like, a self defeatist conceptual ouroboros; but the truth is for you and you alone to decide. And if you disagree then I told you so. If you disagree with me telling you so, I told you so. If you think anything, that's you telling so. Right. Great stuff. We're finally getting somewhere.

If it doesn't exist it cannot be a truth. Circular reasoning, not withstanding.

An unoffensive proposition between two intelligents minds is stated as a "truth" as long as it satisfies both. Within the human interpretation a thing is said to be true as long as it rings true about itself. Ridiculous then how a proposition, questionable in its actual existence (aka, "a thought") can have such authority over living affectionate actualities (within the scope of their concept of reality, another shared concept of perceived actuality banishing theory from the factual dinner table of truth). I see and I know. Does ya? Me too. Then it shall be so.

Truth is the conformity of the intellect to the object. Basically, it's subject to individual perception.

Keep drumming away verbal validation if it helps you sleep at night, but I've got news for you: truth doesn't even exist either. It's just a concept itself. Yet the things it tells you apparently do exist because they are true. Truth telling you truths is like a universe creating itself. Or a God doing it. Whichever concept you prefer as your truth. I mean take your pick, fella. It doesn't really matter.
deanhills
pentangeli wrote:
I mean take your pick, fella. It doesn't really matter.
Especially at the final moment when we pass our last breath! I guess that is when it finally dawns on us that it is the "empty" space around the image in the photo that really defines us, not the image that defines the empty space. Smile
Bikerman
I'm afraid I lost the will to continue reading after 'it does validate Christianity'.
Bizarre...because it (your position) is actually a polar opposite to that of Christianity. Christianity is completely absolutist with regard to truth. There is one, absolute, unchangable truth in Christianity - Christ. "I am the way and the truth and the life". By arguing that truth is dependent on individual perception you are arguing against this, not for it. My perception is that Christianity is based on myth - therefore my perception is true. But it cannot be true because Jesus SAID it wasn't true.

I'll reiterate what I have said one more time, so you can criticise that rather than what you appear to think I have said.

1) Truth is not totally dependant on individual perception. This has been demonstrated in a number of ways, from formal proof to common-sense example. Since ALL perception is inherently flawed and partial, it cannot be the basis of any system of truth designation.
2) Truth is not something which science ever claims, since any scientific theory is a model of the phenomena under examination and the map is never the territory.
3) Truth in a formal sense refers to logical/mathematically proven statements/theorems. Since logic and mathematics start with a set of axioms, and everything that follows is deductive, rather than inductive logic, it can be said with absolute accuracy and precision that a certain theorem/statement is proven (true), and it will always be so no matter what happens in the future. The sum of the squares of opposite and adjacent sides of right euclidean triangle will always equal the square on the hypotenuse, no matter what developments or discoveries are made. No mathematical proof can be refuted because the very fact that it IS a proof means it applies universally, within the stated axioms. That is why pythagorean trigonometry works today just as it did in 450BCE.
4) Mathematical and logical truth is conceptual in that it relates to non-physical entities - ideals if you like. Thus a mathematical triangle is an idealised three sided shape which, so far as we know, does not exist in nature. That does not mean that they do not exist at all. The concept exists and it does so outside the mind of any single individual. It is discoverable - I would expect any intelligent species to have discovered trigonometry.
You are conscious. Can you show me your consciousness please? I want to look at it. No? Does this mean that consciousness does not exist?
5) Truth is NOT conformity of the intellect to the object - that is too wooly. For something to be true there must be some concrete expression of that truth. That something is a statement, proposition or belief.
You are, I think, trying to describe the neo-classical correspondence theory of truth. In that theory, a statement is true if it corresponds to 'reality' (in the form of a fact which can be objectively verified). This is a line of argument developed by Bertrand Russel and George Moore at the start of the 20th century. They thought that where a proposition corresponded to a fact it was identical to truth. This is called the Identity theory of truth. Unfortunately it fails. The reason is quite involved and although I am happy to explain it in depth, it will take a couple of pages of fairly close and fairly dense argument to show why it fails. This was therefore rejected and became the above - the correspondence theory of truth - where there is a correspondence rather than an identity between the belief and a fact.

Simply put, correspondence theory holds that a belief is true if, and ONLY if it corresponds to a fact.

(Notice that this completely rules out any notion of 'personal' truth, since any such truth must correspond to verifiable fact).

Now, we can go on and look at the coherence theory of truth if you like, but it will not advance your argument - in fact it will make it worse.
jeffryjon
Book 1: Genesis (The Book of Production)

In the beginning Axiom created the place of extreme bliss, a place of safety and eternal joy (mind) and the ears. And the ears were without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of Axiom moved upon the face of the doubtful. And Axiom said, Let there be light: and there was light. And Axiom saw the light, that it was good: and Axiom divided the light from the darkness. And Axiom called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

And Axiom said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the doubtful, and let it divide the doubts from the doubts. And Axiom made the firmament, and divided the doubtful which were under the firmament from the doubtful which were above the firmament: and it was so. And Axiom called the firmament place of extreme bliss, a paradise. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

And Axiom said, Let the doubtful under the place of extreme bliss, a place of safety and eternal joy (mind) be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And Axiom called the dry land Ears; and the gathering together of the doubtful called he Sees (perceptions): and Axiom saw that it was good. And Axiom said, Let the ears bring forth growth, the growth yielding see’d, and the fruitful tree yielding fruits after its kind, whose see’d is in itself, upon the ears: and it was so. And the ears brought forth growth, and growth yielding see’d after its kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose see’d was in itself, after its kind: and Axiom saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day.

And Axiom said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the place of extreme bliss, a place of safety and eternal joy (mind) to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the firmament of the place of extreme bliss, a place of safety and eternal joy (mind) to give light upon the ears: and it was so. And Axiom made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And Axiom set them in the firmament of the place of safety and eternal joy (mind) to give light upon the ears, And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and Axiom saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

And Axiom said, Let the doubtful bring forth abundantly the moving creation that hath life, and (let) flight that may all that can take flight above the ears (thoughts) in the open firmament of place of extreme bliss, a place of safety and eternal joy (mind). And Axiom created great and exceedingly good examples (whales), and every living creation that moveth, which the doubtful brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged (thing) that could take flight after his kind: and Axiom saw that it was good. And Axiom blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the doubtful (gaps) in the sees (perceptions), and let that which takes flight multiply in the ears (thoughts). And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

And Axiom said, Let the ears bring forth the living creation after its kind, capital, and creeping things, and beast of the ears after its kind: and it was so. And Axiom made the beast of the ears after his kind, and capital after their kind, and every thing that creeps upon the ears after its kind: and Axiom saw that it was good. And Axiom said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the efficiency of the see (perceptions), and over the flight of the air, and over the capital, and over all the ears and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the ears. So Axiom created man in his own image, in the image of Axiom created he him; both male and female created he them. And Axiom blessed them, and Axiom said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the ears, and subdue: and have dominion over the efficiency of the see (perception), and over the flights of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the ears. And Axiom said, Behold, I have given you every growth bearing see’d, which is upon the face of all the ears, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding see’d; to you it shall be for consumption. And to every beast of the ears, and to every flight of the air, and to every thing that creeps upon the ears, wherein there is life, I have given every agreeable growth for consumption: and it was so. And Axiom saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Thus the place of safety and eternal joy (mind) and the ears were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day Axiom ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And Axiom blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it:

because that in it he had rested from all his work which Axiom created and made. These are the generations of the place of safety and eternal joy (mind) and of the ears when they were created, in the day that the LORD Axiom made the ears and the place of safety and eternal joy (mind), And every plant of the field (of study) before it was in the ears, and every growth of the field (of study) before it grew: for the LORD Axiom had not caused it to rain upon the ears, and there was not a man to till the ground of his works. But there went up a mist from the ears, and doubted the whole face of the grounds (upon which it relied). And the LORD Axiom formed man of the dust of the ground (upon which it relied), and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. And the LORD Axiom planted a garden eastward in delight; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

The truth shall set you free.
Indi
jeffryjon wrote:
Indi, either overnight or the last few days, my intelligence levels have dropped dramatically or what you said is the contradiction.

Well, duh. ^_^; Of course what i said was the contradiction: i was showing you the contradiction because you said you couldn't see it.

i wouldn't want to rule out your intelligence levels dropping dramatically, though. Let's keep our options open! ^_^;

jeffryjon wrote:
Find yourself a truth and test it to the nth degree...

Testing? What testing. There is no testing involved here. i showed the statement cannot be true using pure logic: i didn't use any observational evidence at all.

jeffryjon wrote:
... someone, somewhere will have an equally solid counterargument - and that's yet another perceived truth (mine).

A "perceived truth"? ^_^; Is that the term for "something i think is true because i want it to be true"?

It's not a "truth". It's plainly wrong, and again it can be proved by simple, pure logic. If it were true that for every argument there existed an equally solid counter argument, then nothing could be undeniably true, which means that "nothing could be true" couldn't be undeniably true. Therefore, the claim must be false.

jeffryjon wrote:
Chris already showed that even pure logic relies on axiom...

If Chris showed that, Chris was wrong (but i seriously doubt Chris showed that). Pure logic has no axioms. Applied logic has axioms - such as math or science (the practice of, not the facts of). That's what makes pure logic into applied logic: axioms.

i don't need any axioms, postulates, observational evidence or anything but pure logic to know that the statement "nothing is true" cannot be true; and i can do that because the assertion is reflexive, or self-referential, which means i can apply it to itself. Similar reasoning to show why that statement must be false is what i used to show why the topic of this thread must be false.

jeffryjon wrote:
... something accepted as self-evident - evident, meaning plain-to-see - a perception - (seemingly) obvious - a forgone conclusion due to the fact that nobody can be bothered to argue with it - a closing of the mind to any other possibility than the accepted axiom - an absence of argument about something -enough individuals holding their minds in agreement about their individual perception - "yes I agree - let's see what we can derive from this." That's how we get things done in this world - 2 or more gathering in a single name and doing wonderful and seemingly endless things - it's very useful - though the only absolute about it lies in the resolution accepting the axiom - and only as long as the resolution remains in play.

i don't think you understand what axioms are. ^_^;

First of all axioms are not "evident" or "plain to see" or any kind of "perceptions". Axioms are asserted as true WITHOUT any evidence, observations or perceptions. That's the whole point of what they are, and that's what makes axioms different from other types of postulates.

Second, axioms have nothing to do with "a closing of the mind to any other possibility than the accepted axiom" or an "absence of argument". That's just nonsense talk. Axioms must be tested for consistency with themselves and with the other axioms in the applied logic field. If an axiom contradicts another axiom, one of them must be discarded. If an axiom is self-contradictory, it must be discarded. This assertion, for example - "all truth is subject to individual perception" - could never be an axiom, because it is internally inconsistent. It can't be true in any logical domain.

Third, axioms have nothing to do with consensus or "enough individuals holding their minds in agreement about their individual perception", whatever the hell that bit of verbiage is supposed to mean. An axiom in a logical domain is an axiom in that domain if someone says it is - it only takes one person, not "enough individuals". If no one else agrees with that axiom, no one else is using the same logical domain. If i define the applied logical field of "indiology" with the axiom "anything not logically impossible is only true if indi says it is", then that is the field of indiology, and that is an axiom in it. If no one else in the world uses indiology, that's fine, but the axiom still exists.

Seriously, you really don't know what you're talking about.
Bikerman
I've got to hold up my hand here. I have used 'logic' a few times where I should have specific applied logic, and I gave a definition of axioms which included 'self evident' - which I meant in a different way to which it was interpreted...
Related topics
Is there truth?
The Truth About Easter
Philosophy Essays & Philosophy Texts
How Prayer Accelerates the Treatment of the Sick
How your country treat gifted children
philosophy of philosophy: Metaphilosophy
Metaphysics: Studying the Human Potential
To be successful tell a lie?
Religion/Faith forum
Do you have any faith that there is a "soul"
Psychic Abilities?
What is truth and reality?
Collection of Pentangeli "troll" posts - No. 3
from non-believer to believer.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.