TRUTH IS UNIVERSAL
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: February 17th, 2009, 4:13 pm
My own perception does not have a problem with "Truth" as a subject, or an object.
Before one can define " Truth is Universal" one must have a definition of the "Truth" that is in question, and the circumstance of observation.
The limits, if any, predefine inclusion or exclusion not only of the "Truth" in question, but the circumstance of observation and the consequence.
The position of the observer, dependent or independent, has, or may have, consequence.
Until one knows the status of the observer, and the consequence the observer has, if any, on the result determined from the inclusion or exclusion of anything.. then the result cannot be determined.
That means that the "Truth" cannot be universal, until one knows the status of the observation.
A physical observer, in this universe, is a reaction.
If the observer is here,in this universe its presence has consequence, even if it does nothing and dissapears a moment in time later.
If the observer is not here,in this universe, but can see and has no influence, then it cannot be traced by any other observer inside this universe.. any time, any place.. else if it can.. it has consequence.. an observer inside the universe can see the observer outside.. and whatever "Truth" is being evaluated by either.. has changed.
So no i do not have any problem with subject or object...
before one can evaluate anything one must define the limits. else.. the result.. will be random.
so define the "Truth" and the limits ones definition has, then one can have a limited definition.Else the "Truth" is in change.. why?, because an element of change one has excluded, is outside ones definition, but can have consequence on the result. "Truth" is limitless unless one knows every possible influence and consequence, with or without inclusion.
Even then, because the observer inside the universe.. as we are, knows that mathematics shows that random has no limits, just defined probability based on the observers limits, then even if one knew everything, every moment in time,anywhere inside this universe.. still the possibility of a random event is possible.
something one could not determine, could occur.. and so the "Truth" is not universal or may not be, its dependent on the observation criteria.
-
- Posts: 1230
- Joined: May 13th, 2008, 9:06 pm
- Location: Here/Now
Nope. The statement "Truth is universal" is in itself a definition of the 'state' of 'Truth'/reality. It is a statement of definition; "Truth is_____!"Incony wrote: Before one can define " Truth is Universal" one must have a definition of the "Truth" that is in question, and the circumstance of observation.
Context is irrelevent to the statement. It is an absolute, whether one tiny Perspective can regognize it or not. It need not be universally accepted by all Perspectives. It cannot be recognized by all Perspectives, because one 'truth' is that, "for every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"
So universal 'consensus' on anything is not possible.
Science requires the "circumstance of observation", not 'truth'. Truth is irrefutable/non-falsifiable.The limits, if any, predefine inclusion or exclusion not only of the "Truth" in question, but the circumstance of observation and the consequence.
There are no 'consequenses'. 'Cause and effect' is an obsolete notion.The position of the observer, dependent or independent, has, or may have, consequence.
Again, you are speaking of the new scientific method. Assuming that it will or can discover 'truths' is unsupported. One cannot learn the mind of the sculptor no matter how deeply one examines the sculpture.Until one knows the status of the observer, and the consequence the observer has, if any, on the result determined from the inclusion or exclusion of anything.. then the result cannot be determined.
Truth/reality is non-contextual.That means that the "Truth" cannot be universal, until one knows the status of the observation.
A universal truth is;
"In Silentium, Verum!" -Book of Fudd
("In Silence, Truth!")
Another was the 'Perspectives' quote. Your take on the matter is irrelevent. They cannot be refuted. The very attempt to argue, proves the truth of the quotes.
By "this universe" I assume that you refer to the bit of universe that you perceive, at the moment of your statement.A physical observer, in this universe, is a reaction.
In 'this' universe, there are no 'reactions' (nor 'actions').
'Cause and effect' are obsolete notions. There are "mutually (synchronously) arising features of the same event". Linearity is a relic of local Perspective.
I would agree that you are one Perspective, but that is far from universal.
"This"? Which universe? This one Now!? or Now!? How about this universe Now!?If the observer is here,in this universe its presence has consequence, even if it does nothing and dissapears a moment in time later.
Any feature of existence, at any moment, is a feature of the universe. It doesn't 'do' anything to it. It (we) are features of, one with the perceived universe.
Let me help you with another universal truth that I have found, irrefutable;
"The complete universe, at the moment of description, is defined/described as the sum-total of all Perspectives!" Desperately, vastly deeper and more than you can possibly imagine. No one Perspective can encompass the 'reality' (truth) of the complete momentary universe.
Platonic nonsense. Science has shown that we are not independent objective observers. Empiricism is refuted.the observer inside the universe.. as we are,
We are integral with the observed universe, One, non-different!
Perceiver and perceived are one universe! Now! and Now! and Now!
We are integral threads in the complete tapestry of momentary existence.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13822
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
How can there be an opposite or equal perspective to any perspective when each perspective is unique? How could any perspective be identified so precisely that its opposite and equal perspective could be identified?"for every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"
'Cause and effect' are obsolete notions. There are "mutually (synchronously) arising features of the same event". Linearity is a relic of local Perspective.
I would agree that you are one Perspective, but that is far from universal.
and also
Do you agree that some perspectives somewhere, at some time, may be visions of a substantial bit of truth? E.g the theory of evolution by natural selection. E.g. The story of The Good Samaritan? E.g. Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony? I mean. aren't some perspectives closer to the total of all perspectives than others?We are integral with the observed universe, One, non-different!
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: February 17th, 2009, 4:13 pm
Any observer in this universe can see light.
Its "Truth" is only at the moment of observation..
right now, by the observer.
One cannot trace the status of a light photon in time, only observe its status at the point of observation.
So, unless one can, The "Truth" is in question, since its status is not universal.
The question is the "Truth" and it cannot be universal unless it is the same for every observer, any moment in time anywhere in this universe.
Light, at the moment, is an example of our inability to define absolute "Truth"
One begins theory, to discover..
The theory "Is Truth Universal?" can be shown, right now to be false, It is not universal.
Can anyone map the the status of a light photon right now.. ? show me..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment
So.. define the "Truth", The "circumstance " "Universal " This universe? or some other one can define?, The Observer - Independent or dependent? If time is a consequence by that i mean it has influence on the result, then, define that.
If the definition can exclude an influence, it is limited.
So..
i define light as my "Truth" :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light
I define the circumstance:
1. A condition or fact attending an event and having some bearing on it; a determining or modifying factor.
2. A condition or fact that determines or must be considered in the determining of a course of action.
3. The sum of determining factors beyond willful control. Often used in the plural: a victim of circumstance; work that will begin on Monday if circumstances permit.
4. circumstances Financial status or means: "Prior came of a good family, much reduced in circumstances" George Sherburn.
5. Detail accompanying or surrounding an event, as in a narrative or series of events.
6. Formal display; ceremony: the pomp and circumstance of a coronation.
7. A particular incident or occurrence: Your arrival was a fortunate circumstance. See Synonyms at occurrence.
I define Universal:
u·ni·verse (yn-vûrs)
n.
1. All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
2.
a. The earth together with all its inhabitants and created things.
b. The human race.
3. The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.
I define the Observer:
me, dependent and of consequence to the final result of my observation by inclusion in this universe.
i define time:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time
i make my observation,
It is limited, because i define the limits above:
I observe light, an event any observer can see, replicate and consider, if the observer is inside this universe.. i limit my observation because i have no evidence that any other kind of observer exists, or that light may exist outside this universe.
I see that light can be of more than one state at any moment in time, to any any observer using the above criteria, in evidence i can show :
The "Truth", The "circumstance " "Universal " This universe? or some other one can define?, The Observer - Independent or dependent? If time is a consequence by that i mean it has influence on the result, then, i must define that.
I See that the "Truth" i observe using the above method is limited, and is not universal, inside this universe.
So.. If one disagrees with this method, and has defined and replicatable method, as i have described above, that an observer like me can reproduce..
Post it here, else it is theory.. not truth.. unless one defines the limits of truth
Cause has effect .. even if the cause is undefined, else the "Truth" has no truth.. since if the truth cannot have a cause , what is it? and how can an observer see it? If something does not have a source.. it is random.. a randome event.. no trace, no cause.. It happens..
It is possible.. even a limited observer like me can see that, but i look for cause.. i look for evidence, i look for reason, i understand the circumstance, i understand.
Until i know the cause and understand it.. i have theory, i have belief.. my truth is my own.. it is not universal.
-
- Posts: 1230
- Joined: May 13th, 2008, 9:06 pm
- Location: Here/Now
"Opposite and equal". Exactly opposite. For every single unique Perspectine there is a simglw unique opposite Perspective. The opposite of a unique perspective is likewise a unique Perspective. I'm not understanding oyur difficulty...Belinda wrote:How can there be an opposite or equal perspective to any perspective when each perspective is unique?nameless wrote:"for every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"
Very good! It cannot but by Consciousness. Even we, these unique Perspectives, cannot know our universe so precisely to be able to, moment a' moment, recognise, if presented with the precise opposite. I have certainly encountered Perspectives on the far side of the spectrum, but exactitude is not possible. Besides, the moment opposite Perspectives arise, they self annihilate, anyway.How could any perspective be identified so precisely that its opposite and equal perspective could be identified?
I don't think, due to our natural limitations (of Perspective), it can be possible to 'identify' an opposite, especially as the momentary opposite is uniquely different from moment to moment. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle...
and also'Cause and effect' are obsolete notions. There are "mutually (synchronously) arising features of the same event". Linearity is a relic of local Perspective.
I would agree that you are one Perspective, but that is far from universal.Do you agree that some perspectives somewhere, at some time, may be visions of a substantial bit of truth?We are integral with the observed universe, One, non-different!
I wouldn't know what others mean by 'truth', but I translate it on one level as the 'true nature of existence/omniverse. 'Reality' works too.
"The complete universe, at the moment of definition, is the sum total of all Perspectives!" Every 'reality/truth/bit of universe' as perceived by each and every Perspective (us) is a single 'feature/thread' of the great tapestry of the complete reality/universe/existence, Now! and Now!...
Some Perspectives have a 'wider included angle' (broader) than others, but all are incomplete, all are limited (to one extent or another). Yes, some are quite narrow and others quite 'broad'. No Perspective can encompass the whole (especially since "for every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective"..).E.g the theory of evolution by natural selection. E.g. The story of The Good Samaritan? E.g. Beethoven's Pastoral Symphony? I mean. aren't some perspectives closer to the total of all perspectives than others?
-
- Posts: 1230
- Joined: May 13th, 2008, 9:06 pm
- Location: Here/Now
And we cycle right back to your lack of scientific understanding. Every 'observer' is unique, as is every moment/universe perceived by these unique Perspectives. Your 'demands' (for 'truth') are impossible and irrational. I guess that if you insist on adherence to your impossible demands, you will have sufficient 'validation' for your assertion/belief that there is no universal truth.Incony wrote: The question is the "Truth" and it cannot be universal unless it is the same for every observer, any moment in time anywhere in this universe.
Not uncommon 'reasoning', but not rational/logical/scientific either.
I have offered truths and you obviously cannot refute than (havn't even mentioned them), you manufacture impossible demands that therefore negates any reason for you to address them fairly and rationally, or any other offerings of a 'universal truth'.
Ex; You say; "Truth' has to be blue!" Therefore if you offer anything yellow, I need not even pay attention as it can't possibly be 'true' (as per my definition)!
I guess that we will have to agree to disagree, or it seems that this conversation will get repetitious quickly.
Thanks for the convo.
Peace
-
- Posts: 1230
- Joined: May 13th, 2008, 9:06 pm
- Location: Here/Now
It is a tentative and as yet unrefuted extrapolation of the evidence perceived, and gedanken experiment and QM. The 'gedanken experiment', mind experiment, like; imagine an elevator passing through space at the speed of light... There is no physically practical means to perform the experiment, so, in the context of mind/imagination, it can be performed. Every new advance in QM further supports what I have been presenting. Stay tuned.Belinda wrote:Are the existences of unique and opposite perspectives, since can never identify such, a matter of faith ? Is this question too empirical for a rational view to answer?
Empiricism fails for the exact reason that I have been presenting. (The 'world' that it does present is tiny and mean!) Different perspectives! Different moments! There is a huge 'reality critical update' around the corner.
You might be interested in reading the current Scientific American magazine, the article about Einstein in particular.
QM and Relativity can neither account for 'gravity'. It is completely accounted for in my theory, along the same lines as the paradoxes of 'time' and 'motion'. Wait and you can read about it in Scientific American in 5 or 10 years, maybe 15, considering the ocified grey academic hoards pledged to guard the 'past'...
The value in 'theories' is that which they can describe and predict.
We live in 'exciting times'!
Stay tuned. *__-
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: February 17th, 2009, 4:13 pm
If your circumstance and your observation is limited.. relate that.. hide nothing.. preclude nothing..
if one has no evidence, what does one have?
tell me. post it here.. Assumption is not the truth, at least your truth is not mine, and therefore cannot be universal.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13822
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
-
- Posts: 98
- Joined: February 20th, 2009, 6:17 pm
They went out of fashion in Anglo-American philosophy?Belinda wrote:I can see that empiricism is too small and thought experiment is appropriate to many questions however tentative the answers may be . I have nothing against rational theories either, in fact it is difficult for me to understand how in Anglo- American philosophy they went out of fashion.
Explain this, please.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023