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
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13821
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post by Belinda »

Yes Jarle, that's the way, iron out the creases as we go along :)
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13821
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post by Belinda »

Pekin, your Options One and Two I would call attitudes that nearly all of us have to other people and also to other entities of all sorts.

I agree with your Premise One , that thoughts exist.
I disagree with your Premise Two that (thoughts exist) necessarily implies that there is a thinker of thoughts.
pekin
Posts: 78
Joined: November 25th, 2008, 5:00 pm
Location: London

Post by pekin »

Belinda wrote:Pekin, I agree with your Premise One , that thoughts exist.
I disagree with your Premise Two that (thoughts exist) necessarily implies that there is a thinker of thoughts.
Premise One: Belinda have acknowledged and replied to my earlier reasoning. [True premise]

Premise Two: Pekin is dreaming that Belinda has replied to his reasoning. [This is false if Premise One is true]

Conclusion One: If premise one is true then Belinda exists.

Conclusion Two: If premise two is true Pekin exists.

Conclusion Three: Whether Belinda replies to my reasoning or I am dreaming her replying it is always the case that thoughts are produced or received by something/someone. [As I have mentioned earlier what is this “something/someone” is the subject of a scientific inquiry.]

One of the important discovery of the scientific inquiry is that: We are only aware of the void, material beings and [the by-product of material beings] the notional beings and nothing else.

Science has also shown that, the function of thinking very much connected to my brain rather than my toes. If I lose my brain [which is a physical entity] I shall not be able to show her logical mistakes.

Thanks
pekin
Last edited by pekin on February 18th, 2009, 4:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
Incony
Posts: 11
Joined: February 17th, 2009, 4:13 pm

Post by Incony »

The truth is ones own.
Since the truth may be shared by many, but determined by one.
It must include random and unconnected events.

So.. today i am incony, but at any moment in time i may be not.

isnt that the preclusion?

Time waits for no one, any event cannot determine its future, only summarize its history..

If A = A now, and one can see that, and determine that A in all probability - A will = A forthwith, even though one may be unaware of events that influence the status of A, as one looks at it.. then A is not stable, it is in change determined by time.

Time determines change. Berlinda or Perkin have no percieved influence on time. Unless that is ones percieved truth.

Can one influence time? yes..

I see that time can be influenced.

How can time be influenced? Science enables the prerogative.. one can influence time with means.

One does as one chooses..
Having the means, is determinable. Though for one it may not be possible, yet.

That for me , relates my position in relation to time. I can see the method, but i may not be able to use it, and at any moment that determination may change, since i cannot influence time, and i am unaware of anything that can, that i can influence.

If i were able to travel as fast as light, i could see the effect on time, i cannot.

Berlinda may be Berlinda now, may be nothing or anyone at the next moment all of which i cannot determine.. i cannot influence time.

I can see history..

History enables me to see method, it has given me the ability to sense how time works.. but still history does not take me beyond what time is right this moment.. time leads me on still, it is ahead of me.

Science history tells me that random events have no precursor. A random event may have no history, may never have occured before.

what one calls Berlinda, after all just a name, itself a random event.. Then Berlinda, and time and event and random are all one.. and can change at any time.

What was, what is, may not be.
pekin
Posts: 78
Joined: November 25th, 2008, 5:00 pm
Location: London

Post by pekin »

Incony wrote:The truth is one's own.
Incony, welcome to the Philosophy Forums and I hope that you will bring valuable contributions to our common zeal - the love of wisdom.

This particular debate is called "Truth is Universal" and contributors are supposed to be focussing on this statement. Diversions are not desirable for obvious reasons.

Having briefly dismissed the “Truth is Universal” by saying that “The truth is one's own”, you seem to have concentrated your comment on “Time” [no doubt this interesting subject could have been debated in somewhere else.]

In philosophy opinions are worthless unless they are defended by reasoning. And in "reasoning", we understand modern logic.

“The truth is one's own” implies subjectivity. Let us see what will happen if we put it into logical structure:

Premise One: Truth is subjective.

Premise Two: According to my atlas the USA is in North America.

Premise Three: My daughter Mary [she is 2] believes the USA is in Asia.

Premise Four: According to John [who is mentally ill] the USA is in Africa.

Conclusion One: If premise one and premise two are correct, then the USA is in North America.

Conclusion Two: If premise one and premise three are correct, then the USA is in Asia.

Conclusion Three: If premise one and premise four are correct, then the USA is in Africa.

Conclusion Four: If premise one, two, three and premise four are correct, then the USA is in North America, in Asia and in Africa.

Incony, Can you see the confusion?

Thanks,
pekin
Last edited by pekin on February 22nd, 2009, 8:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
Kool-aid
Posts: 286
Joined: December 12th, 2008, 5:30 pm

Post by Kool-aid »

I have seen here that the objective reality is sometimes defined as "the sum of each individuals perspective". I don't see how this is compatible with a reality which is independent of the mind. Of course we cannot know the existence of this objective reality, but do you think it is a reasonable assumption?
pekin
Posts: 78
Joined: November 25th, 2008, 5:00 pm
Location: London

Post by pekin »

Jarle10, Since you haven't quoted and didn't mention any name, I am not quite sure which comment do you have in your mind. Please remember there are apparently 35175 registered users in the Philosophy Forums.

Assuming that you are quoting:
Conclusion Four: If premise one, two, three and premise four are correct, then the USA is in North America, in Asia and in Africa.
Your comment was:
Jarle10 wrote:I have seen here that the objective reality is sometimes defined as "the sum of each individuals perspective".
My reasoning immediately before your comment does not follow your conclusion "the objective reality is sometimes defined as the sum of each individuals perspective" for the reason that: I said IF premises 1, 2. 3 and 4 are correct.

We know that the USA is in the North America and therefore Premise 3 and 4 are FALSE and Premise 2 is the only TRUE PREMISE.

Therefore "The truth is one's own".or "Premise One: Truth is subjective" is FALSE.

In other words, "Truth is Universal".

Thanks
pekin
Kool-aid
Posts: 286
Joined: December 12th, 2008, 5:30 pm

Post by Kool-aid »

pekin, I was actually thinking of my debate with nameless, but it doesn't matter - I would just like some points of views on it.
Incony
Posts: 11
Joined: February 17th, 2009, 4:13 pm

Post by Incony »

If.. "Truth" is Universal, it must have definition.

If.. "definition" depends on time and time is in change then definition is in change.

How can i see that time is in change? i measure it.

So, if "Truth" is universal, and time is integral to the universe, and definition of "Truth" depends on time Then "Truth" is in change.

If.. perception of "Truth" is made by observation, then the observer defines the "Truth" observed.

If another independent observer, at the same time, observes "Truth" but observes another result at that moment in time, then "Truth" is not universal, Why.. because two observers of the same "Truth" have different observations. One "Truth" is not universal.

Why is that possible.? i have described the inclusion of random as an event in time.. :)

I believe that a random event began the universe i am an observer of.

ones "Truth" is ones own.. since my "Truth" is my definition.. dependant on time, in this universe.

My definition of "Truth" can change.. how much time passed before one could accept that the stone was not always the stone....

If the "Truth" is universal, independent of the observer.. then it should be possible to define the absolute unchanging truth..

So.. Pekin.. define the "Truth"... :)

In effect, the "Truth" is a random event, i believe.

Ones "Truth" is ones own... since even logical determination, inclusive of random ( which the observer defines) includes or should include random, unless of course the observer limits the definition.

limits, predefine inclusion.

The "Truth" is , i think, random..

So let me include random in this topic.

The truth is random, my truth, is my own.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13821
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post by Belinda »

Jarle, I agree that it is forever impossible to know whehter or not there is an objective reality apart from the total of perceptions. I would include perceptions of all sorts of entities as well as humans. I don't know about the perceptions perceived by trees and ants, of course because trees don't have nervous systems to perceive with and ants seem to perceive as colonies not as individuals.
Kool-aid
Posts: 286
Joined: December 12th, 2008, 5:30 pm

Post by Kool-aid »

Belinda wrote:Jarle, I agree that it is forever impossible to know whehter or not there is an objective reality apart from the total of perceptions. I would include perceptions of all sorts of entities as well as humans. I don't know about the perceptions perceived by trees and ants, of course because trees don't have nervous systems to perceive with and ants seem to perceive as colonies not as individuals.
Yes, but this is only how we percieve them. So this definition doesn't really give us much. Where would one draw the line for a qualified observer? What differs a subject from an object? I like to define the objective mind-independent reality as a model for our understanding of the world. It can perfectly explain how we observe different things even though there is only one sequence of events that is true independently of the observer. With this model one can properly define an universal truth of the physical world without ambiguity, independently of our ability to verify them.

This discussion has gone beyond that, however, and is now considering the possibility of universal truth independent of the physical nature. This line must be made very clear as I believe that my discssion with nameless has its roots here. A common misunderstanding of logic, I believe, is that people is assuming its validity is based on that it is obvious, i.e. empirically verified. This is not true. Formal logic does 'assume' some base axioms, but these are not assumptions in the normal sense. They are rather the defining building blocks of what we call a logical system. It doesn't matter whether they apply to practical problems in nature or not.

This is where we can find our universal truths, as our statements made are only preposed to be true if our base axioms are true. So my conclusion would be that we can actually find universal truths, but they does not, in the strictest sense, give us any information (about the physical nature). We can know them a priori as they are analytically deduced truths based on our definition of the terms we consider.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13821
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post by Belinda »

Jarle asks "where would we draw the line for a qualified observer?"

I think that the Roman Catholic catechism has an item in it to the effect that humans exist to glorify God. Despite many religious people understanding this teleologically, if you stand it on its head you get that humans may be the only species that can seek for absolutes and the only species that tries to understand the creation as a whole.

However other species have perceptions of joy and pain. Personally I would draw the line at every creature that interacts with its environment,however passively, which is every creature.So I would include trees and ants as perceiving subjects.

The difference between subject and object is more problematic, and I suspect that it has a lot to do with a subject's self perception of itself as a self.It seems clear that self consciousness is necessary for maintaining the integrity of the subject, but this biological necessity is a barrier against the dissolution of self.Do meditators and other mystics manage from time to time to dissolve self consciousness? I suggest that if mystics can do so, they may perceive absolutes but if they were in permanent and constant states of meditation they would sooner or later cease to live.So the barrier between subject and object is mentally, emotionally and physically a priori (axiomatic)but metaphysically there is no such barrier.

I am suggesting that objective reality is problematic because one's view slides imperceptibly between the physical and the metaphysical.I too await nameless's comments, and of course, your own comments, Jarle.
Incony
Posts: 11
Joined: February 17th, 2009, 4:13 pm

Post by Incony »

If the "Truth" is universal then the observer can trace it., The consequence is definitative..
Quote:

"The difference between subject and object is more problematic,"

Replies:

No. since if the truth is evident and can be traced
the source can be found and will be evident..

If one cannot trace the "Truth" then that truth is not universal. Why.. because one has no evidence.

Belief.. may be the "Truth" but to prove it one must have evidence that can be replicated by independent source.. else.. what is that "Truth"? a belief or random event.. it has no proof.. no replication by observer..

The question becomes ones definition of "Truth" not the "Truth" and the dependence or independence of the observer, from the universe.

The independence of the observer, excludes influence... since only by such exclusion can the observation be independent.. else the observer is a reaction not an observer,the inclusion of the observer in the event defines the result..

It is why i suggested that Pekin define the "Truth"

If The "Truth" is universal.. then the same "Truth" is evident to any observer, any moment in time, anywhere in this universe and can be replicated and shown at any moment in time. The Observer cannot influence it, else the observer is a reaction and the "Truth" is not universal... the observation is inclusive..without that moment in time, and that observer, the "Truth" may not be what the observer saw.can see,or another observer saw or can see.

If it cannot.. then it is not universal.

If one percieves that a "Truth" is capable of such indication... and one can replicate and demonstrate to any observer, any time, that, that is so, without question, one might have found such a "Truth".

I see no problem in that purpose..


Subject.. is the "Truth"

Object... is the "Truth" any time, any place, any observer, within this universe.

If such a "Truth" exists.. show me.. i wait to see..

I cannot see all time.. i would need to be an exclusive observer, of no consequence or influence to the observation, this universe. The moment i am inside this universe, i influence the result, since anything that occurs within it, and is part of it, has consequence. If the cause has consequence that is exclusive to the result.. ie it can happen without reason, it must be independent.

That would mean that "Truth" is random..since it depends on independent input...If the cause is within the universe, but cannot be traced, it is still random.
df544
Posts: 98
Joined: February 20th, 2009, 6:17 pm

Post by df544 »

Belinda wrote:Jarle, I agree that it is forever impossible to know whehter or not there is an objective reality apart from the total of perceptions. I would include perceptions of all sorts of entities as well as humans. I don't know about the perceptions perceived by trees and ants, of course because trees don't have nervous systems to perceive with and ants seem to perceive as colonies not as individuals.
Forever impossible of an objective reality apart from our perceptions?

What do you call atoms and quantum mechanics, my darling?

Since atoms can be considered the building blocks of the world and universe and atoms are 99.9% empty space, we can IMAGINE what it's like to perceive the world if we were shrunk down to the size of an electron.

It would look like empty dark space with twinklets of lights.

The Night Sky, Belinda.

Look at it.

You have seen God's face.
nameless
Posts: 1230
Joined: May 13th, 2008, 9:06 pm
Location: Here/Now

Post by nameless »

Incony wrote: "The difference between subject and object is more problematic,"
It is only problematic to those who believe the (obsolete Greek) fantasy that there is a difference.
Perceived and perceiver are One, definitionally!
Empiricism is refuted! It is no more than a very locally pragmatic phenomenon.
Your 'science' is obsolete.
QM has the critical update available, when you are ready.
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