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
Incony
Posts: 11
Joined: February 17th, 2009, 4:13 pm

Post by Incony »

The quote was not mine.
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.
Incony
Posts: 11
Joined: February 17th, 2009, 4:13 pm

Post by Incony »

god can play dice. :)
nameless
Posts: 1230
Joined: May 13th, 2008, 9:06 pm
Location: Here/Now

Post by nameless »

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.
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_____!"
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.
The limits, if any, predefine inclusion or exclusion not only of the "Truth" in question, but the circumstance of observation and the consequence.
Science requires the "circumstance of observation", not 'truth'. Truth is irrefutable/non-falsifiable.
The position of the observer, dependent or independent, has, or may have, consequence.
There are no 'consequenses'. 'Cause and effect' is an obsolete notion.
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.
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.
That means that the "Truth" cannot be universal, until one knows the status of the observation.
Truth/reality is non-contextual.
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.
A physical observer, in this universe, is a reaction.
By "this universe" I assume that you refer to the bit of universe that you perceive, at the moment of your statement.
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.
If the observer is here,in this universe its presence has consequence, even if it does nothing and dissapears a moment in time later.
"This"? Which universe? This one Now!? or Now!? How about this universe Now!?
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.
the observer inside the universe.. as we are,
Platonic nonsense. Science has shown that we are not independent objective observers. Empiricism is refuted.
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.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13821
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post by Belinda »

"for every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"
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?
'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
We are integral with the observed universe, One, non-different!
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?
Incony
Posts: 11
Joined: February 17th, 2009, 4:13 pm

Post by Incony »

I can see light.

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.
nameless
Posts: 1230
Joined: May 13th, 2008, 9:06 pm
Location: Here/Now

Post by nameless »

Belinda wrote:
nameless wrote:"for every Perspective, there is an equal and opposite Perspective!"
How can there be an opposite or equal perspective to any perspective when each perspective is unique?
"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...
How could any perspective be identified so precisely that its opposite and equal perspective could be identified?
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.
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...
'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
We are integral with the observed universe, One, non-different!
Do you agree that some perspectives somewhere, at some time, may be visions of a substantial bit of truth?

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!...
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?
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"..).
nameless
Posts: 1230
Joined: May 13th, 2008, 9:06 pm
Location: Here/Now

Post by nameless »

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

Post by Belinda »

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

Post by Belinda »

god can play dice.
Isn't the jury still out on this one?
df544
Posts: 98
Joined: February 20th, 2009, 6:17 pm

Post by df544 »

Belinda wrote:
god can play dice.
Isn't the jury still out on this one?
No.

God has been convicted.

There is randomness built into the universe.

Watch out when he rolls a . . (two).
nameless
Posts: 1230
Joined: May 13th, 2008, 9:06 pm
Location: Here/Now

Post by nameless »

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?
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.
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. *__-
Incony
Posts: 11
Joined: February 17th, 2009, 4:13 pm

Post by Incony »

i wait to see, as an observer.. promises are not evidence, "staying tuned" does not give me evidence i can replicate.. show me the method, post it, theory is not evidence,belief is not evidence, if one has a problem with my definition of evidence.. i suppport that, if defined. so that any observer can reproduce it.. dependent on your circumstance.

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.
Last edited by Incony on February 28th, 2009, 4:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Belinda
Premium Member
Posts: 13821
Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
Location: UK

Post by Belinda »

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.
df544
Posts: 98
Joined: February 20th, 2009, 6:17 pm

Post by df544 »

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.
They went out of fashion in Anglo-American philosophy?

Explain this, please.
nameless
Posts: 1230
Joined: May 13th, 2008, 9:06 pm
Location: Here/Now

Post by nameless »

Incony wrote:"staying tuned" does not give me evidence...
I was speaking to Belinda. Our convo is ended.
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