TRUTH IS UNIVERSAL

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
nameless
Posts: 1230
Joined: May 13th, 2008, 9:06 pm
Location: Here/Now

Post by nameless »

Simon says... wrote:well see this kind of illustrates what I was getting at, for you must be using a different notion of reality, for the concept of reality that I am referring to, cannot by definition be divided into two because there can only be one reality. It is, the reality and there are no others.
There is the complete Universe, complete Reality, which none can perceive in it's entirety.
We perceive our reality.
"The complete Universe/Reality is defined/described as the sum total of all (unique) Conscious Perspectives (us)."
So the 'reality' that we perceive is a 'true', 'real' feature of the complete Reality of existence/ Universe. One thread in the tapestry...
ape
Posts: 3314
Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Post by ape »

Simon says... wrote: Nooooo, the first two bits make sense but the last does not. You say everywhere something is true not everything. In this place of space and time that I am occupying, something is true and that is that I am typing (at least this is what my senses are telling me) but it is false that I am drinking from a cup thus not everything is true.
ape:
Well said!
Love that 'noooooo!'
You are right!
But guess what?
I am right too!
I can describe your typing, as the lips of your fingertips, and thus you, drinking letters out of the cup of your keyboard!
I can even describe drinking as typing the letters of taste on lip-tips of the keyboard of the tongue!:)

Thus et is true that you are typing and drinking at the same time everywhere!
Hmmmmm

In other words, when we use Outer Reality as our Referential Reality:
Outer Reality factual objective truth is the minor truth,
and
Inner Reality subjective truth is the major truth.
:idea:

What say you?

Is it true everywhere at all times that all these are all true?
"To see the universe in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower;
Hold infinity on the palm of your hand
And eternity in an hour."
William Blake
Simon says...
Posts: 739
Joined: July 10th, 2009, 3:24 am

Post by Simon says... »

aaaah, I think I know what your getting at now. Hmmm, (thinks it over for a second)...

yes, but I would not assign the name "reality" to that inner one, rather I would merely call it "perception". Their after all is the major issue that everything we think we know about the outer reality has to be filtered through our senses, which is infuriating because they are not always accurate, and on top of that we cannot actually tell the difference between the truth and the lie so we must assume that what we are sensing is real because assuming it isn't gets you nowhere because you can't act on that which you are not sensing!

The other problem as I think I mentioned earlier is that words are very like algebra, and so the philosopher not only has to worry about getting their logic right, but also getting the definition and meaning of their words over to their arguee, and understanding the arguee's words him/herself! Failing this leads to misunderstanding. In fact I am prepaired to bet good money that a great many "disagreements" in the world are not actually disagrements at all but misunderstandings. In other words people just assuming they know what people are talking about, and assuming people know what they are talking about!
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13821
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post by Belinda »

nameless, 4.11 PM

I think you cannot explain this too often. But how can this perspective be explained in an easier or more sensational idiom ? Is there a myth that will serve ?
User avatar
pjkeeley
Posts: 695
Joined: April 10th, 2007, 8:41 am

Post by pjkeeley »

nameless wrote:The complete Universe/Reality is defined/described as the sum total of all (unique) Conscious Perspectives (us).
I don't necessarily agree with this definition. I can't know for certain that there isn't more to reality than that which is perceived by conscious beings. What makes you so certain that there is? I thought you were above having beliefs?
nameless
Posts: 1230
Joined: May 13th, 2008, 9:06 pm
Location: Here/Now

Post by nameless »

Belinda wrote:nameless, 4.11 PM

I think you cannot explain this too often. But how can this perspective be explained in an easier or more sensational idiom ? Is there a myth that will serve ?
Sorry, Belinda, but could you restate your question, please? Simple english for simple people? heh
I really do not understand your meaning.
Thanks for the courtesy.
*__-
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13821
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post by Belinda »

nameless, I mean , like the Allegory of the Cave, or like the Christian myth, or like the Arthurian myths that explain chivalry and messiahship.Or Muhammad's midnight flying, and being embraced by Gabriel.Not that these are easy for moderns to enjoy and interpret but they served their purpose once. What I have in mind is perhaps a simple sci fi theme and presentation that even Disney could make a go of .

There are many books that explain much in the form of myth but books are not popular. TV, internet and film plays would be better.If you think of how popular that horrible sensationalist Mel Gibson film about the torture of Jesus was, it is surely not impossible for the angels to give voice too?

Religion has had its day. Philosophy is all very well but in the present state of education is misunderstood.
nameless
Posts: 1230
Joined: May 13th, 2008, 9:06 pm
Location: Here/Now

Post by nameless »

pjkeeley wrote:
nameless wrote:The complete Universe/Reality is defined/described as the sum total of all (unique) Conscious Perspectives (us).
I don't necessarily agree with this definition.

Nor need you.
I can't know for certain that there isn't more to reality than that which is perceived by conscious beings.
I agree with you! We cannot know anything "for certain".
'Certainty' can be seen as a cognitive defect (references available).
But, as thoughout recorded human history, there has never, never, been any evidence in support of the notion of the existence of anything that is not perceived by some Conscious Perspective (nor can there ever be).
The evidence discovered and presented by quantum physics stands in support of my statement of definition more strongly every day.
There is, at present, no evidence in refutal.

Soooo, one needn't feel 100% certain as to the accuracy of my definition, but the probability of error is so infinitesimally small, one is able to, logically and philosophically, at least tentatively', accept the theory as the 'best' (and all inclusive/complete), at the moment, at least until there is some evidence discovered in refutal.
All the evidence agrees.
What makes you so certain that there is?
As i have explained, all the evidence agrees, and I am not 'certain'. Science and critical thought are never 'certain', 'certainty' is for religion and psychological/emotional processes.

(Just between us, Mr. Moderator, I snipped your final personal and nasty comment. As a mod you should set a better example than that.)
User avatar
pjkeeley
Posts: 695
Joined: April 10th, 2007, 8:41 am

Post by pjkeeley »

nameless wrote:(Just between us, Mr. Moderator, I snipped your final personal and nasty comment. As a mod you should set a better example than that.)
I don't think my comment was nasty, although I admit I am prone to nastiness in some of my posts. It just seemed inconsistent to me. You have stated in the past that you are above having beliefs. I spotted a statement that was worded like a belief. Surely I am entitled to question whether you are being consistent? I just wanted clarification, and I got it. Thanks.

Sorry if it seemed harsh. :twisted:
ape
Posts: 3314
Joined: April 6th, 2009, 9:55 pm

Post by ape »

Simon says... wrote:aaaah, I think I know what your getting at now. Hmmm, (thinks it over for a second)...

yes, but I would not assign the name "reality" to that inner one, rather I would merely call it "perception".
ape: Aaaah! So what is real to me is what is perception to you, and what is real to you is also perception to me!

So here is the solution, 'my' solution, not mine at all, that makes what you call perception a true reality to you! After all, perception is a word and is the ability to perceive or understand by words, and what you perceive is also all made of words! All words only mean other words!

There are 2 realities: Inner Reality, IR & Outer Reality, OR.
Words only represent what's real in the OR.
But in the IR, words ARE the reality.

So when we use the OR as our reference reality, RR,--which is what 99.9% of us do--
everything:et in the OR is the real objective reality, and et in the IR is subjective and virtual reality.

BUT when we use the IR as our RR, everything in the IR is the real objective reality and et in the OR is virtual subjective reality!

Hmmmmm
Now which reality is the more real reality?
Well, since we use IR to make sense of the OR, then the IR is the more real reality or is the real reality and et in the OR is really VR!

And since the IR works by words and their opposites, which are composites, and which opposites-composites work by the word Love which loves all words and their opposites, which means that each words means all words and all words mean each words--a la the motto of D'Artagnan and the 4 Musketeers---then there is no way to limit any definition or limitation to what is the accepted def of anything in OR, and so your truth of what we dictionary-define a grain of sand is is as good as WB's or mine or whoever's since it's true to you! So everybody is freed up since what is called a lie is just a different name for the truth that is not yet believed, so we assume that everybody is telling the truth as they see it, even as we verify it or deverify it as to OR!

So this approach solves all problems you mention: Definitions and how we look at defs, that is, what other words we use to define the defs! It takes away the infuriation at being trapped by words. In Love, that trap becomes the tender trap! It allows my infinite definition of any word to cover any limited definition you apply to any word! And proves you true when you say that most--I wd say all--disagreements are misunderstandings simply because the disagreers do not realise that when one says 'give' and the other says 'take,' they are both saying the same thing since to give is to take from oneself and to take is to give to oneself.

This all ties in with math, algebra and your post on Hitler and how you defined all sins as equal when compared to infinite goodness:goodness that is infinite in its definition!

What say you?
"Language, the substance of thought, is a system of metaphors with a mythic & anthropomorphic base."
Miguel de Unamuno
Simon says...
Posts: 739
Joined: July 10th, 2009, 3:24 am

Post by Simon says... »

I get what your getting at...mostly, but I wouldn't go so far as to say this inner reality as you call it, is more real than the outer reality. It certainly seems more real to the observer by dint of it being the only frame of reference we have to the outside world, in other words it seems more real because we have nothing else for it to seem less real than. But what something seems to be is not always the same as what something actually is. I prefer not to twist words so as to make my argument more convincing, this partially why I am not so open minded as most philosophers, after all I my dad is a scientist. I do not agree with things like "certainty is impossible" or "it is impossible to be false" or "all things are subjective" or that "truth is a flexible concept" because I think those come from a result of twisting words out of their formal meaning. Then again, it doesn't help that a lot of words like "truth", have several formal meanings.

But assuming of course that there is an outer reality at all, then there is an interaction between inner and outer. The outer I call "reality", the inner I call "perception of reality", which may be accurate or not but we can't know the difference we can only assume that it is accurate, which usually seems to work, whether it actually works is a mystery. But whilst the perception of reality depends on the person in question, for all people's perception is unique, assuming they exist at all, the outer reality has only one true state at any given time. This is how I define "truth" and "reality", that which is what it is regardless of anything else's perception of it. Real, in this definition is not the same as perceived. Real may not be known, but that doesn't change what it is. So when I hear stuff like "real for you, and real for me" I cringe on the basis that you are not actually talking about what is real or true because there is only one of it and we can't both be right on conflicting claims, what you are talking about is your perception of what that truth or that reality is, and you can't be wrong on what your perception is, regardless of whether it is accurate or not, and whether it is accurate or not is anyone's guess.
nameless
Posts: 1230
Joined: May 13th, 2008, 9:06 pm
Location: Here/Now

Post by nameless »

Simon says... wrote:this partially why I am not so open minded as most philosophers, after all I my dad is a scientist.

All good scientists are open minded to anything that they find, and examine it critically. 'Close-mindedness' has no place in science or philosophy. Then we are dealing with psychological/emotional processes, such as 'beliefs'.
twisting words out of their formal meaning.

Words have no "formal meaning", where did you hear that?
As Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. so elequently stated;
"A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and time in which it is used."
Then again, it doesn't help that a lot of words like "truth", have several formal meanings.
Formal again? Hardly! Notions such as 'truth' is bandied all over the place by philosophers. One suggests a 'definition' and another says no. There is no consensus. Just follow some of the 'truth' threads on this board.
Perhaps 'truth' is what everyone thinks it is, sum-total?
This is how I define "truth" and "reality", that which is what it is regardless of anything else's perception of it.

There is not anything that exists that is not perceived. There is no, nor can there be any evidence
to the contrary.
and we can't both be right on conflicting claims,
Why not?
what you are talking about is your perception of what that truth or that reality is, and you can't be wrong on what your perception is,
Exactly why apparently conflicting perceptions can both be 'correct'! Exactly why "the complete Universe is defined/described as the sum total of all Conscious Perspectives!" - Book of Fudd

All features of 'truth/reality/the Universe' are true and real, each and every unique Perspective (us).
nameless
Posts: 1230
Joined: May 13th, 2008, 9:06 pm
Location: Here/Now

Post by nameless »

pjkeeley wrote:You have stated in the past that you are above having beliefs.
I doubt that. I would not say such a nonsensical thing. You are in error.
Feel free to link me, or stand down.
Simon says...
Posts: 739
Joined: July 10th, 2009, 3:24 am

Post by Simon says... »

There is not anything that exists that is not perceived? Woa that is quite an assumption to be make there. I take it when a tree falls in the forest with no observers your one of the people who denies this? Of course there is no evidence for it because all the evidence available has to go through our senses and thus might not be accurate...But a lack of evidence prooves nothing. There is also no evidence to suggest that there isn't stuff that isn't perceived. The reason I assume that stuff exists that is not perceived is because I have literally no reason to suspect that it doesn't. Tree falls in forest with no observer, does this happen for real? Why on earth wouldn't it happen for real?

I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to explain this concept now seeing as, apparently not only does my logic escape you but my words too! If my words are usless how am I to explain anything whatsoever.

Seriously, what do you actually think is the case? That stuff only exists when you are observing it? Do I exist or am I just a figment of your imagination, does anything besides you exist? I'm not asking if you know the answer to this cos u don't, but what do you think? If other people exist besides you, why not other things? & I'm at a loss as to why everyone seems incapable of distinguishing between real and perception, belief and truth and objective and subjective!
nameless
Posts: 1230
Joined: May 13th, 2008, 9:06 pm
Location: Here/Now

Post by nameless »

Simon says... wrote:There is not anything that exists that is not perceived? Woa that is quite an assumption to be make there.
Not really, all the evidence is in support. Even the evidence of quantum physics. Bishop Berkeley puts it well. Etc...
I take it when a tree falls in the forest with no observers your one of the people who denies this?

What? That it fell? Made a noise?
The answer is simple science. No mysticism involved. And answered clearly by myself and others elsewhere on the forum.
"When a tree falls (or a hand claps or enjoying a Beethoven symphony...), a standing compression wave is created; a 'shock wave' (or, of course, multiples thereof)!
A 'shock wave' is absolutely silent!!
If it acts upon a membrane, such as our eardrum, the wiggles jiggles and bumps of the eardrum are conveyed to and 'translated' in the brain and conceived/perceived as 'sound' (whether Beethoven or a smack in the head, all 'sound' is in the 'mind', as is all 'light/color', 'odors', 'textures', etc..., all 'sensory' percepts).
Outside your head, there is absolute silence, absolute darkness...
With no 'perceiver' there is no 'perceived'.
We are One."
Of course there is no evidence for it because all the evidence available has to go through our senses and thus might not be accurate...
Accurate? According to what parameter? Your perceptions? Science's percepctive? The Perspective of 'belief/faith'? Of a mouse?
If it is perceived, it (exists!) is real! True! Incomplete!
But a lack of evidence prooves nothing.

Exactly!
But when there is all evidence to the contrary, your notion remains no more than an unfounded 'belief' based on imagination and/or emotional needs, etc...
It is neither science nor philosophy. It is 'religion'. And from that perspective, is 'valid'.
"Everything exists (in context)."
That which exists is a feature of the complete Universe, and in that context, 'valid/real/true'.
There is also no evidence to suggest that there isn't stuff that isn't perceived.

Poor statement. It is impossible to prove an absence, and a logical fallacy to request one.
The reason I assume that stuff exists that is not perceived is because I have literally no reason to suspect that it doesn't.

You would if you studied a bit of science. And logic. The same illogic is used to 'justify' everything from 'beliefs' in faeries and guardian spirits to life after death. If you see faeries, they are real for you and a real feature, in that context, of the Universe. Science and logic are not perspectives in support. 'Faith' and 'belief' are the context for all sorts of 'interesting' and horrible stuff. Your dreams and thoughts and beliefs are real, but not necessarily to or for other Perspectives.
Tree falls in forest with no observer, does this happen for real?

There is no evidence in support. Of course there are Perspectives that believe that it does. So it both does and does not, depending on context/Perspective.
Why on earth wouldn't it happen for real?
The same question can be asked to justify ('justification' is an emotional affair, not science) faeries and ghosts. You cannot prove an absence, so, utilising that cognitive fallacy, you can 'justify' (if you feel the need) any 'belief'.
I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to explain this concept now seeing as, apparently not only does my logic escape you but my words too! If my words are usless how am I to explain anything whatsoever.
Your words are clear, but your logic needs a bit of polishing is all.
Seriously, what do you actually think is the case? That stuff only exists when you are observing it?

If I am not perceiving something, it has no existence in my perception of reality, my little world. That, in itself, is no argument that it does not, after all, exist in the perceptions of others, and thus a feature of the complete Universe.
Do I exist or am I just a figment of your imagination, does anything besides you exist?

As I said, "Everything exists!"
Existence is perceived context. In/as the appropriate context, everything exists.
Even "figments of imagination".
I'm not asking if you know the answer to this cos u don't,

I 'think' that it is irrefutable, that "everything exists (in context)".
It is all inclusive. The complete set.
All further distinctions (subsets; 'this' exists 'that' doesn't...) fall to Occam's razor as added complexity with no gain.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021