Truth is to Reality as Relative is to Absoute? Is there an absolute reality anyway?

[Popeyesays]

There have been several basic Aristotelian Truths to which man has always applied theology and philosophy:

1. That what we observe and experience in the outer world has some reality and existence independent of our observing and experiencing it,
2. That time is a universal phenomenon; i.e., that the passing of time is the same for all people under all circumstances,
3. That space is a universally uniform phenomenon,
4. That, although matter can be broken down and built up, in any process matter is conserved (i.e., the sum total of mass at the beginning equals the sum total at the end). This is usually associated with a concept of an indestructible, irreducible, prime matter from which all else is built up,
5. That if proposition A is the opposite of proposition B, and one of these is shown to be true, then the other must necessarily be false.

These are considered a Newtonian view of the universe even though Newton formulated many of them, nonetheless theywere expresswed b efore Newton refined them.

These precepts are at the base of most Judaeo-Christian-Muslim theology.

But they need to be reconsidered in light of new discoveries about the nature of Creation:

1. We can make no absolute statements about phenomena. The phenomena that we are observing are in fact affected by our observing them. Therefore, our observations are not objective and independent but relative. In other words, we cannot know anything in absolute terms. This is because our methods of measuring relate to only one of these factors, leaving the other uncertain. In general then, any statements that we make are purely relative to our method of observing and measuring this world.
   
2. Time is not universal, its rate of passing is relative to the observer.
3. Space is not uniform but is in fact curved by mass. Indeed, space-time is one interconnected entity.
4. Mass is not in fact conserved in subatomic reactions; it can be created and disappear with gains and losses of appropriate amounts of energy.
5. Both mass and electromagnetic wave energy were considered, to be two fundamentally different phenomena. If X is a body with a mass, tradition excluded the possibility that it could be an electromagnetic wave. Now, however, subatomic particles can be considered as both electromagnetic waves and as particles with mass--something that it is not even possible to conceive of intellectually, since our concepts are naturally based on our every-day experiences. The idea of something being simultaneously both a physical body and an electromagnetic wave is outside of our every-day experience.
   
   Causality itself, a a fundamental plank of the Newtonian world-view becomes meaningless. At this level, we can no longer speak of individual events and their causes. All we can do is to measure groups of events and assign probabilities to them. Thus we find the Law of Causality being replaced by the Law of Probability.

This presents a new paradigm to theology as well as science, and the more we ignore it the more distortion we apply to out understanding of God, Revelation and the Universe.

"So perfect and comprehensive is His creation that no mind or heart, however keen or pure, can ever grasp the nature of the most insignificant of His creatures; much less fathom the mystery of Him Who is the Day Star of Truth, Who is the invisible and unknowable Essence. The conceptions of the devoutest of mystics,, the attainments of the most accomplished amongst men, the highest praise which human tongue or pen can render are all the product of man ~ finite mind and are conditioned by its limitations". Bahá'u'lláh, Gleanings, No. XXVI, p. 48/62/62 (italics added).



With respect to Mooj Momen for kicking off this line of thought.


Regards,

Scott

[oldcajun]

Originally Posted by popeyesays

There have been several basic aristotelian truths to which man has always applied theology and philosophy:

1. that what we observe and experience in the outer world has some reality and existence independent of our observing and experiencing it,
2. that time is a universal phenomenon; i.e., that the passing of time is the same for all people under all circumstances,
3. that space is a universally uniform phenomenon,
4. that, although matter can be broken down and built up, in any process matter is conserved (i.e., the sum total of mass at the beginning equals the sum total at the end). This is usually associated with a concept of an indestructible, irreducible, prime matter from which all else is built up,
5. that if proposition a is the opposite of proposition b, and one of these is shown to be true, then the other must necessarily be false.

these are considered a newtonian view of the universe even though newton formulated many of them, nonetheless theywere expresswed b efore newton refined them.

These precepts are at the base of most judaeo-christian-muslim theology.

But they need to be reconsidered in light of new discoveries about the nature of creation:

1. we can make no absolute statements about phenomena. The phenomena that we are observing are in fact affected by our observing them. Therefore, our observations are not objective and independent but relative. In other words, we cannot know anything in absolute terms. This is because our methods of measuring relate to only one of these factors, leaving the other uncertain. in general then, any statements that we make are purely relative to our method of observing and measuring this world.
   
2. time is not universal, its rate of passing is relative to the observer.
3. space is not uniform but is in fact curved by mass. Indeed, space-time is one interconnected entity.
4. mass is not in fact conserved in subatomic reactions; it can be created and disappear with gains and losses of appropriate amounts of energy.
5. both mass and electromagnetic wave energy were considered, to be two fundamentally different phenomena. If x is a body with a mass, tradition excluded the possibility that it could be an electromagnetic wave. Now, however, subatomic particles can be considered as both electromagnetic waves and as particles with mass--something that it is not even possible to conceive of intellectually, since our concepts are naturally based on our every-day experiences. The idea of something being simultaneously both a physical body and an electromagnetic wave is outside of our every-day experience.
   
   Causality itself, a a fundamental plank of the newtonian world-view becomes meaningless. At this level, we can no longer speak of individual events and their causes. All we can do is to measure groups of events and assign probabilities to them. Thus we find the law of causality being replaced by the law of probability.

this presents a new paradigm to theology as well as science, and the more we ignore it the more distortion we apply to out understanding of god, revelation and the universe.

"so perfect and comprehensive is his creation that no mind or heart, however keen or pure, can ever grasp the nature of the most insignificant of his creatures; much less fathom the mystery of him who is the day star of truth, who is the invisible and unknowable essence. The conceptions of the devoutest of mystics,, the attainments of the most accomplished amongst men, the highest praise which human tongue or pen can render are all the product of man ~ finite mind and are conditioned by its limitations". bahá'u'lláh, gleanings, no. Xxvi, p. 48/62/62 (italics added).



with respect to mooj momen for kicking off this line of thought.


regards,

scott

YOUR POST------------------------ZING----------------------------------------------->

??----------------------------------MY HEAD----------------------------------------??

[Jayhawker Soule]

What does "absolute reality" mean?

[Popeyesays]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule

What does "absolute reality" mean?

I'm supposed to know?

Regards,
Scott

[tariqkhwaja]

In fact, the book of Hazrat Mirza Tahir Ahmad, the fourth calif of the Ahmadiya Muslim Community, was about Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge and Truth. Discussing your question, he stated:

The issues we are about to discuss are concerning the instruments which may lead to knowledge and the manner in which any knowledge could be ascertained as truth. If all human vantage points are actually placed on a moving platform, with constant change in the angle of vision, how can any knowledge or piece of information we obtain be declared, with any certainty, to be the truth? There is one vantage point, that of God the Creator, which is eternal and constant. Hence, if the existence of an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Omnipresent God is proved and if He is Eternal, Infallible, Transcendent, All-Powerful and Possessor of absolute attributes— then and only then could the possibility of gaining knowledge of eternal truth through Him arise. But this hypothesis is only conditional on the premise that not only does such a Supreme Being exist, but that He also communicates with humans. It is this communication of God with humans which is called revelation in religious terminology.
To discuss issues of such great import, purely on a secular and rational basis is not an easy task. Add to this the question of revelation as having played any significant role in human guidance, and the task will become all the more challenging. Yet this is the task we have undertaken, with the full realization of all the complexities involved.

So I guess what he was effectively saying was read the rest of the book to see how he proves the above point taken from Introduction with a Historical Perspective. Very interesting read with something for everyone on these forums. Just have a look at the table of contents and you will surely find at least one topic that intrigues you to read it Al Islam -Revelation, Rationality, Knowledge and Truth.