Philosophy Discussion Forums

I would propose that not only is simplicity truth, but that Absolute Simplicity is Absolute Truth, using the definitions that [s]implicity and [t]ruth are relative [ever changing and knowable] and that [S]implicity and [T]ruth are Absolute [fixed and unknowable]. Consider the following...

It is easy to observe that increasing complexity [in all things] leads us further and further from the truth of any matter. Examples of this phenomena are omnipresent. Just take a look at the small print in any financial agreement! Confronting any institution, one notices that an entire esoteric language has been created to obfuscate the truth. This is particularly obvious in the law and medicine.

The truth of any matter is ALWAYS exceedingly simply. For example, take the world hunger problem. The answer is to feed the hungry. The problem is not finding this answer, but instead, deciding whose free lunch is going to be cut off by enacting such a policy. This applies to all public policy. The key, therefore, is never in finding answers, it is in seeing the problems clearly.

It becomes the responsibility of the ministers of dis-information to take what is elementary and make it increasingly complex to the degree where people can no longer see the truth. This is what politicians and all the parasites that surround government primarily do.

Let's say you want to re-institute real money in the U.S. [instead of counterfeit debt-based FIAT currency/credit]. This would be a bonanza for the average American, but it would cut off the nearly unlimited stream of wealth flowing to the elite. Therefore, you must create a very complex narrative to justify why a debt-based FIAT currency exists. The key is make it sufficiently complex so that almost nobody will be able to understand it. After all, you can probably count on two hands and a foot how many people in this country actually understand what money is.

So, the simpler something is, the closer it is to the truth. This should be obvious. In the Absolute case, Absolute Simplicity means, before any means of creating complexity, so since Absolute Truth is unknowable, Absolute Simplicity applies. It is this which allows entrance to the Reality that none of us can know. Move forward from Absolute Simplicity into the world of complexity and you are back in the thinking world.

Those who wish to gain access to Reality can only get there by giving up that which is most precious to themselves, their identity, their claim on being here in any real way. As it has been said throughout the ages, if you wish to have it all, you must be willing to give everything up.

First there is no ontological Absolute Truth.

What is 'truth' is always conditioned upon a Framework and System of knowledge.
Example Scientific truths are only 'truths' as conditioned by the Scientific Framework and System with consensus of the scientific community.
Within each Framework and System there are simple and complex truths depending on the complexity of interacting variables.
Thus 'simplicity' is not truth per se but merely one type of truth.

Besides the Scientific, there are many types of Framework and System of knowledge, e.g. mathematics, medical, legal, economics and even theological, etc.

Within each Framework and System of knowledge there are degrees of veracity for each type of truth. Those truth that has strong evidence of empirical proofs has higher degree of veracity whereas those that are speculated as "theory-only" has lower degree of veracity.

Each Framework and System of knowledge will have its own degree of veracity relative to other Framework. I believe Scientific Framework and System has the highest degree of veracity in contrast to other Framework of knowledge, e.g. common sense or theological truths.

So, NO, simplicity is not truth, rather;
Truths can be simple or complex depending on the number of interacting variables involved.

Spectrum wrote:First there is no ontological Absolute Truth.

What is 'truth' is always conditioned upon a Framework and System of knowledge.
Example Scientific truths are only 'truths' as conditioned by the Scientific Framework and System with consensus of the scientific community.
Within each Framework and System there are simple and complex truths depending on the complexity of interacting variables.
Thus 'simplicity' is not truth per se but merely one type of truth.

Besides the Scientific, there are many types of Framework and System of knowledge, e.g. mathematics, medical, legal, economics and even theological, etc.

Within each Framework and System of knowledge there are degrees of veracity for each type of truth. Those truth that has strong evidence of empirical proofs has higher degree of veracity whereas those that are speculated as "theory-only" has lower degree of veracity.

Each Framework and System of knowledge will have its own degree of veracity relative to other Framework. I believe Scientific Framework and System has the highest degree of veracity in contrast to other Framework of knowledge, e.g. common sense or theological truths.

So, NO, simplicity is not truth, rather;
Truths can be simple or complex depending on the number of interacting variables involved.

All well and good but you did not address my point. Within a single framework [or set of conditions], moving towards simplicity is ALWAYS closer to the truth. Here is an example.

Be in the presence of an event taking place v. reading a detailed account. Experience is as close as we can get to the truth.

How do you measure simplicity?

Is 2456 more simple, or more complex, than 5594? They are not equal! So which is more simple?

Or is a nation more simple or a war more simple? One can destroy the other, they are not equivalent, so which is more simple?

Or "convergent thinkign procduces divergent results, and positive thinking produces negative results, by the law of "opposites attract"" is more simple, or is "be the second the unit of time, defined as one-thrieariuqerirrrrth of an Earth year, as per the Aztec, Maya, Inca, Gregorian, and Egypitian calendars" more simple?

Which of these two is more simple:
1. Armegeddon
2. Holocaust
3. Cortez the Killer

Synthesis wrote:All well and good but you did not address my point. Within a single framework [or set of conditions], moving towards simplicity is ALWAYS closer to the truth. Here is an example.

Be in the presence of an event taking place v. reading a detailed account. Experience is as close as we can get to the truth.

I did address it, note,

Spectrum wrote:Within each Framework and System there are simple and complex truths depending on the complexity of interacting variables.
Thus 'simplicity' is not truth per se but merely one type of truth.

Take the Mathematical Framework and System, there is the simple truth of 1 + 1 = 2 and there are complex truth as supported by very complex equations.

Take the weather Framework and System. Black clouds mean potential rain is simple truth but not good enough. To understand the weather thoroughly we need to get into the complex truths to obtain a greater degree of precision. Note the common saying denoting Chaos Theory, "a butterfly flap in China can cause a hurricane in Florida."

Experience is truth to the individual, but a more solid truth is that of shared-experience. But experience is not good enough as a greater truth. For truth to have greater veracity, the proposition must also be supported by philosophical reason, rationality and logic.

spectrum wrote:Experience is truth to the individual, but a more solid truth is that of shared-experience. But experience is not good enough as a greater truth. For truth to have greater veracity, the proposition must also be supported by philosophical reason, rationality and logic.

So you are saying that experience is enhanced in truth value if the theory (support by reason, rationality and logic) behind the experience supports the experience.

So if an experience is simply impossible by reason of being unreasonable, irrational or logic-less, then the experience is not true.

But the experience happened. Without a doubt. There is no way to deny actual events if they happened. But the experience is not supported by logic, reason, or rationality.

How do you mean that, Spectrum? How would this possibly happen? I think what you asserted was redundant, because if something happens and reason does not support it, then there is problems in the chain of reasoning (or error in logic, or bad rationale.) There is no way that the event is in fault, after it occurs, and it contradicts logic, rationale or reason.

-1- wrote:How do you mean that, Spectrum? How would this possibly happen? I think what you asserted was redundant, because if something happens and reason does not support it, then there is problems in the chain of reasoning (or error in logic, or bad rationale.) There is no way that the event is in fault, after it occurs, and it contradicts logic, rationale or reason.

Note I stated,

Spectrum wrote:Experience is truth to the individual, but a more solid truth is that of shared-experience. But experience is not good enough as a greater truth.

For truth to have greater veracity, the proposition must also be supported by philosophical reason, rationality and logic.

Say X claimed he experienced 'God' spoke to him and therefrom claimed God exists.
Basically X is experiencing something and any human is always experiencing something consciously or unconsciously as long as they are living.

But to insists 'God exists' based on such an experience is surely not credible unless it can be further substantiated by philosophical reason, rationality, logical and proofs.

It is the same for some having a visual experience of a mirage and insist there is an oasis in that specific location [when in reality as verified there is nothing in that specific location].
Thus all experiences must be verified objectively with reason, proofs, logic and intersubjective consensus.

[quote="Spectrum"]Take the Mathematical Framework and System, there is the simple truth of 1 + 1 = 2 and there are complex truth as supported by very complex equations.[quote]
The complexity of going from 1+1=2 to the most complex equation imaginable is negligible compared to going from the Truth to 1+1=2. Simply embracing thought is 99.9999...% of it.


Since pure experience happens outside of thinking, real shared experience is not possible. What is shared is a concoction of impressions, observations, and illusions.

Spectrum wrote:Say X claimed he experienced 'God' spoke to him and therefrom claimed God exists.
Basically X is experiencing something and any human is always experiencing something consciously or unconsciously as long as they are living.

But to insists 'God exists' based on such an experience is surely not credible unless it can be further substantiated by philosophical reason, rationality, logical and proofs.

It is the same for some having a visual experience of a mirage and insist there is an oasis in that specific location [when in reality as verified there is nothing in that specific location].
Thus all experiences must be verified objectively with reason, proofs, logic and intersubjective consensus.

I find your treatment of the example not valid.

In the example it is not the truth that God spoke to X; it is true that X claimed that God spoke to him.

Please proceed from this, not from the premise that it is true subjectively from X's point of view, that God spake to him. Proceed with the understanding, that what the true thing is, is that X claimed that God spake to him.

This is true, as we all witness that he is claiming it.

The action of god speaking to X is not true, in the sense, that there is no verifiable detail about it. I can say that I can see what's happening on the dark side of the Moon, or the far side, and everyone knows it is not true, although a smidgen possibility exists. However, everyone will agree, that I claimed that I can see what happens on the far side of the Moon.

You just have to choose what you call "true" more carefully.

Synthesis wrote:

Spectrum wrote:Take the Mathematical Framework and System, there is the simple truth of 1 + 1 = 2 and there are complex truth as supported by very complex equations.
(Nested quote removed.)

What is 'Truth' in your sense?
You will need to prove 'Truth' exists by itself.

Generally 1+1=2 is true or the truth but only in accordance to the Mathematical or numerical framework in the conventional sense. It cannot be true if the binary or other standards/ convention is used.
There is no question of equating Truth to 1+1=2.
It is always 1+1=2 is true as conditioned to a human Framework.
(when octopuses are intelligence enough, their common basis would be 8 not 10).

There is no other real-shared experience other than one that is agreed by consensus between humans. As normal human we will agree both of us will agree that it will be painful if someone wearing shoes step on our toes.

-- Updated Mon Jul 31, 2017 10:33 pm to add the following --

-1- wrote:I find your treatment of the example not valid.

In the example it is not the truth that God spoke to X; it is true that X claimed that God spoke to him.

Please proceed from this, not from the premise that it is true subjectively from X's point of view, that God spake to him. Proceed with the understanding, that what the true thing is, is that X claimed that God spake to him.

That was what I had stated, you did not read my post properly, note

Say X claimed he experienced 'God' spoke to him and therefrom claimed God exists.

A good example is a Schizo claiming he heard voices from a God speaking to him. In this case the subjective experience of X is true. Note such experiences are claimed by many who suffered from various mental illnesses and by other reasons.

But the fact is the existence of God has never been proven, therefore the Statement/proposition itself made by X cannot be true.

Truth is not something you can point at or summon it using verbal phrases. It is something you can experience while not under the phase of "now". Truth is not something specific, but it is always opposite to false matters. False matters give you the option to not believe in them, even if you are a religious person and you believe in god, you can simply stop believing the next day if your intel is altered in a significant always for you way. While the truth does not give you any other option that to blindly believe in it. Truth does not let you to turn your back on it, forget it or ignore it. Truth will never be prioritized under social needs. Truth will not leave you alone until you commit your whole to it. The word truth, is not true tho. Because it can mean a different thing today and an other tommorow. That is a false matter that has the ability to change. Truth is everlasting and unchengable.

September wrote:Truth is everlasting and unchangeable.

What you are implying here is The TRUTH [in caps] which is impossible to exists and illusory. This is often identified as 'God' the ABSOLUTE.
Can you prove such a TRUTH exists?

Despite the absence of evidence, humans desperately believe in such a TRUTH because it has psychological benefits but it also has its cons. At present the cons of such a belief is outweighing its pros as humans continue to evolve into the future.

What is so evident is all things are impermanent and not eternal. The only Constant is Change. This gives hope that we can change for the better [not stuck with the immutability of that unchangeable negatively burdensome Truth].

Spectrum wrote:

September wrote:Truth is everlasting and unchangeable.

What is so evident is all things are impermanent and not eternal. The only Constant is Change. This gives hope that we can change for the better [not stuck with the immutability of that unchangeable negatively burdensome Truth].

Why would you suggest that the Truth is negative? Truth is what it is, fixed in each moment that is inaccessible [temporally or intellectually]. You can still have your truth that is as you suggest.

The idea that this dichotomy exists is what allows those who can accept the relative and Absolute to live in harmony within the relative knowing that it is only our minds that create our difficulties, not Reality.

I agree that simplicity is truth, but mind can never hope to grasp the concept of an Absolute without attempting first to break the unity of such a reality and profaning it thereby, but in the absence of divergencies mind finds no basis upon which to attempt to formulate understanding concepts.

We would be unable to form the first rational thought pattern were it not for the innate ability of mind to form a universe frame in which to think. And while such universe frames for thought are indispensable to rational intellectual operations, they are, without exception, erroneous to a greater or lesser degree. That does not mean, however, there is no ontological Absolute Truth. Just because man must think in a relative universe frame, that does not mean that he cannot envision other and higher frames within which thought can take place. Conceptual frames of the universe are serviceable scaffolding which must eventually give way before the expansions of enlarging cosmic comprehension.

-- Updated August 11th, 2017, 5:35 pm to add the following --

Spectrum asks, 'Can you prove such a TRUTH exists?' as though reason ends at the shore of the invisible. Historically, ontology is the 'First Philosophy.' The fact that postmodernism has not only made the topic unfashionable, but branded it morally repugnant as well, does not diminish its centrality in rational thought. When skeptics are pressed for their ontic frame of reference, the fall back position is invariably 'I don't know.'

Well, that's pretty weak. No one really knows what must be in order for what is to be a it is, but it is impossible to form understanding concepts without having a frame in which to think. The frame may be hidden from the conscious mind, but anyone who postulates anything has an ontic frame of reference. The question Spectrum asks is implies commitment to an amoral philosophy of life.

Dark Matter wrote:I agree that simplicity is truth, but mind can never hope to grasp the concept of an Absolute without attempting first to break the unity of such a reality and profaning it thereby, but in the absence of divergencies mind finds no basis upon which to attempt to formulate understanding concepts.

I believe you should have stopped writing after "Absolute"...

Not that anything could make sense following the above, could be please translate the rest of your sentence. Thanks.