Give me Truth.

[blü 2]

So, do you mean to say that we assume that the reality is already known? And then what is this correspondence?

Have a glance through my reply above to Aupmanyav. It will give you an outline, and then we can discuss the details.

Meanwhile I'd still like to know how you define 'truth'.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In a true nothing are neither entities nor phenomena nor dimensions, no where and no when; so how can there be change without anything to change, and without time to change it in? So my favorite hypothesis is the idea, expressed as monism to keep things clear, that what exists is mass-energy, and that time, space and everything else are properties of mass-energy ie exist because mass-energy does, not vice versa. (Pity I can't demonstrate its correctness ─ it'd save a lot of theology.)(Pity I can't demonstrate its correctness ─ it'd save a lot of theology.)

There are many problems with the notion of absolute truth. First, there is no final demonstration that a world exists external to the self (that solipsism is wrong), or that we're not elements in a hyperbeing's tron game (or, some say, dream) or that the universe, with us in it, was not Last Thursday'd ─ in each case the contrary is an assumption. Second, scientific method proceeds by empiricism and induction, so the conclusions of science are never final, in that nothing protects them from a counterexample we may find tomorrow, or never find. (As Brian Cox put it, a law of physics is a statement about physics that hasn't yet been falsified.) And so on.
It is, according to my definition: a statement is true to the extent that it conforms with / accurately reflects / corresponds to (external) reality.

What definition are you using? When you say there are two levels of 'truth', what do you mean by 'truth'? What test shows whether any statement about reality is true or false?
I respectfully disagree with the Buddha, though I like quite a bit of what he said. I start with three assumptions (which I have to do, since I can't demonstrate that any of them is correct without first assuming it's correct) ─ that a world exists external to the self, that our senses are capable of informing us of that world, and that reason is a valid tool. (Anyone who posts here thereby demonstrates agreement with the first two, and I have to hope with the third.)

And having done that (and cutting a long story short), I find I'm a materialist because so far nothing else makes sense. (By 'materialism' I mean the view that only those entities and processes which are recognized by physics from time to time are real, as the metaphysician Jack Smart, with metaphysician David Armstrong, put it. That is, 'reality' is the same thing as nature, the realm of the physical sciences, the set of all things with objective existence.)

The idea of truth is therefore not fixed, but at any time it has an objective test, the correspondence-with-reality that I mentioned above.

If you cannot demonstrate it, then I do not accept it. We are unanimous that science must authenticate. Monism is only the next best option, which Atanu and I too follow. The difference is that Atanu's monism is theistic (one more twist) while mine is atheistic. How do 'virtual particles' come up and then go back to 'nothingness'?

"The term is somewhat loose and vaguely defined, in that it refers to the view that the world is made up of "real particles": it is not; rather, "real particles" are better understood to be excitations of the underlying quantum fields. Virtual particles are also excitations of the underlying fields, but are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations of interactions, but never as asymptotic states or indices to the scattering matrix. The accuracy and use of virtual particles in calculations is firmly established, but as they cannot be detected in experiments, deciding how to precisely describe them is a topic of debate." Virtual particle - Wikipedia

Perhaps the final demonstration is not there at the moment, but it could come in future. So, I will keep the issue open. I won't jump to conclusion. There is only one possibility that existence and non-existence are just phases. Because if we accept a permanent existence (or existence of a self-appearing God), then the question will arise as to from where this apparition arose? It may not be a hyperbeing's tron game but it could be a tron game of 'physical energy' which we still have to understand. The problem was discussed 3,000 years ago in RigVeda in what is known as the 'Hindu Creation Hymn' (Nāsadiya Sukta) which said:

"sato bandhumasati niravindan hṛidi pratīṣyākavayo manīṣā ll"
Sages who searched with their heart's thought* discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

* Hearts' thought: Einsteinian thought experiment. Sat: existence; Bandhum: relationship, brotherhood; Asat: non-existence - that makes 'Sato bandhumasati'.

"a world exists external to the self": Advaitists would not agree to that since they do not differentiate between the world and self. They think it is one whole as in this Upanishad saying:

"Pūrnam adah, pūrnam idam, pūrnāt pūrnam udachyate;
pūrnasya pūrnam ādāya pūrnam eva avashishyate."
That is whole, this is whole, from that whole arises this whole;
from that whole, if you take out the whole, then what remains is still the whole.

"that our senses are capable of informing us of that world": Sure, the senses inform us about the world, but the world itself is nothing but an illusion, and our senses are too feeble and incapable of giving us the correct information. We see fingers where perhaps there are only eddies of energy. Not even eddies of energy, but only perturbations of the field.

"and that reason is a valid tool": I agree to this though I do not agree with 'objective existence'. What our senses inform us is hugely subjective and limited. We can't even see the ultra-violet and infra-red, or listen to ultra and infra sound.

Not fixed yet, but we are trying.

 

[atanu]

Have a glance through my reply above to Aupmanyav. It will give you an outline, and then we can discuss the details.

Meanwhile I'd still like to know how you define 'truth'.

I will surely share my view. Can you please point out the reply given to Aup or better still do another copy paste?

My query is “Do you mean to say that we assume that the reality is already known? And then what is this correspondence between reality and truth?”

 

[atanu]

Have a glance through my reply above to Aupmanyav. It will give you an outline, and then we can discuss the details.

Meanwhile I'd still like to know how you define 'truth'.

Okay. Do you mean the following blue?

And having done that (and cutting a long story short), I find I'm a materialist because so far nothing else makes sense. (By 'materialism' I mean the view that only those entities and processes which are recognized by physics from time to time are real, as the metaphysician Jack Smart, with metaphysician David Armstrong, put it. That is, 'reality' is the same thing as nature, the realm of the physical sciences, the set of all things with objective existence.)

The idea of truth is therefore not fixed, but at any time it has an objective test, the correspondence-with-reality that I mentioned above.
​

If this is what You meant, I would say that my query remains unanswered. I do not understand if reality is already known then what is the point of seeking Truth?

 

[Aupmanyav]

or better expresssed as "if reality is already known, what reality are you searching for?" Search exists because either the answers are not satisfactory or they are not verified.

 

[blü 2]

If you cannot demonstrate it, then I do not accept it. We are unanimous that science must authenticate.

I can't require you to accept it. I'm just plotting to get you to think about it ─ it solves s-o-o-o many problems AND if it isn't demonstrated, at least it's not refuted.

Monism is only the next best option, which Atanu and I too follow.

My hypothesis would work even if the Big Bang at time zero contained a salad instead of simply mass-energy. But Occam says monism until you have to add more.

There is only one possibility that existence and non-existence are just phases.

Do you mean true non-existence, the absence of mass-energy, dimensions and all? If so, then my mass-energy hypothesis remains on the table, since it doesn't require non-existence (while even religious explanations require a god to exist rather than true nothingness).

It may not be a hyperbeing's tron game but it could be a tron game of 'physical energy' which we still have to understand.

The tron game is part of the argument against absolute certainty. In the context of true nothings and origins, the boss of ExtraUniversal Tron Games Inc, like God, must also have an origin. Whereas with the mass-energy hypothesis ... oh, I may have mentioned that already.

"a world exists external to the self"

: Advaitists would not agree to that since they do not differentiate between the world and self. They think it is one whole as in this Upanishad saying:

"Pūrnam adah, pūrnam idam, pūrnāt pūrnam udachyate;
pūrnasya pūrnam ādāya pūrnam eva avashishyate."
That is whole, this is whole, from that whole arises this whole;
from that whole, if you take out the whole, then what remains is still the whole.

It's a bit late to recommend a good rhetorician to the author(s) of that verse. He/she/they aren't making an argument, but simply asserting.

"that our senses are capable of informing us of that world": Sure, the senses inform us about the world, but the world itself is nothing but an illusion.

This is where I lose the thread. In what sense is this conversation of ours illusory? Are you saying you don't exist? That I should call Ghostbusters? What are you breathing, and if it's illusory, why do you die if you can't breathe? Why did you need parents?

our senses are too feeble and incapable of giving us the correct information.

I don't think there's such a thing as absolutely correct information, just better and worse information. Nor do I think anyone's in a position to say what value we can (over time) make of the information we obtain through our senses. Having watched science all my life, I have a general optimism about our capacity to arrive at places better than the previous ones.

"and that reason is a valid tool": I agree to this though I do not agree with 'objective existence'. What our senses inform us is hugely subjective and limited. We can't even see the ultra-violet and infra-red, or listen to ultra and infra sound.

But cunning critters that we are, we can detect, describe, measure and explain other frequencies, and if need be, we can shift them into patterns within the frequencies visible to us ─ rather like the way my elder son's bat-cry detector brings ultrasound down into the audible. Instruments are simply extensions of our senses in this context.

 

[blü 2]

Okay. Do you mean the following blue?

And having done that (and cutting a long story short), I find I'm a materialist because so far nothing else makes sense. (By 'materialism' I mean the view that only those entities and processes which are recognized by physics from time to time are real, as the metaphysician Jack Smart, with metaphysician David Armstrong, put it. That is, 'reality' is the same thing as nature, the realm of the physical sciences, the set of all things with objective existence.)

The idea of truth is therefore not fixed, but at any time it has an objective test, the correspondence-with-reality that I mentioned above.
​

If this is what You meant, I would say that my query remains unanswered. I do not understand if reality is already known then what is the point of seeking Truth?

You can seek truth by enquiring about real things so as to make accurate statements about them ('truth'). You may be trying to establish whether there are heavier Higgs bosons than the one we found, or where you might have lost your cell phone, or when the last train to Clarksville is scheduled to leave on Sundays. The principle is the same (as is the test).

Or you can simply deal in truth, making statements about reality that you've known for a long time were true.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"But Occam says monism until you have to add more.":
I am myself a strong monist (that is the reason why I am an atheist). I agree to Occam, Monism solves ALL PROBLEMS EXCEPT ONE. It cannot explain the appearance of eternal 'what exists'. Where did that arise from?

"Do you mean true non-existence, the absence of mass-energy, dimensions and all?":
Yes, I understand that. Even if existence and non-existence are phases, monism remains true after the beginning of existence.

"the boss of Extra-Universal Tron Games Inc, like God, must also have an origin":
The tron game is played by 'physical energy'. It flits between existence and non-existence and takes all forms that we observe in the universe. Now, what is this energy? I do not know its secrets. How does it begin to exist? I suppose it completes the reigning Trinity with Space and Time.

"He/she/they aren't making an argument, but simply asserting.":
He/she/they (whoever) are stating their conclusion after deep contemplation on the subject. However, Hinduism does not make it necessary even for its adherents to agree to this view. It is a monist/advaitist view. There are other views too.

"This is where I lose the thread. In what sense is this conversation of ours illusory? Are you saying you don't exist? That I should call Ghostbusters? What are you breathing, and if it's illusory, why do you die if you can't breathe? Why did you need parents?":
Remember Tron Game? Yeah, Aupmanyav does not exist. He is just a perturbation in the force field. The same is true for all things in the world and all things in the universe. The Ghostbuster and you yourself too are perturbations only. My breathing too is a perturbation. I never die. How can a monist die? Death of a true monist will mean folding up the universe. Am I not 'what exists'? The perturbations will continue to happen in spaces that I occupied in past, am occupying in present and all spaces that I will occupy in future, irrespective of whether you call me living or dead. The senses provide us the information which is necessary for our survival (thanks to a 4-billion year evolution since Prokaryotes).

"But cunning critters that we are, we can detect, describe, measure and explain other frequencies, and if need be, we can shift them into patterns within the frequencies visible to us ─ rather like the way my elder son's bat-cry detector brings ultrasound down into the audible. Instruments are simply extensions of our senses in this context.":
True. Evolution gifted us a brain 700 million years ago. We can do a lot with it. Perhaps even find the "Absolute Truth" (Paramarthika Satya).

Nice exchange of views.

 

[blü 2]

I am myself a strong monist.

I'm a monist about mass-energy, tentative because it's not essential to my hypothesis, but useful. What is the subject of your monism?

Even if existence and non-existence are phases, monism remains true after the beginning of existence.

I'm attracted to my hypothesis for the very reason that it doesn't require phases, doesn't require true non-existence at any point ─ that is, time exists because mass-energy does, not vice versa.

The tron game is played by 'physical energy'. It flits between existence and non-existence and takes all forms that we observe in the universe.

On our present understanding, no, energy doesn't flit between existence and non-existence. Instead there are no extant counterexamples to the principle that energy is indestructible, can neither be created nor destroyed.

Now, what is this energy? I do not know its secrets.

Energy crops up all over physics, from the momentum of your foot to the atom bomb and mc^2. What's lacking is a unifying thesis that describes the interchangeability of the various forms such that eg we could in principle use the latent energy due to gravity to make a quark. Nor is there any clue as to how the existence of energy might of itself imply the existence of the EM, strong and weak forces, though Einstein's curved space might explain gravity (pity it won't talk to QM); nor how the existence of energy might imply the dimensions in a causal sense.

How does it begin to exist? I suppose it completes the reigning Trinity with Space and Time.

But if time is a property of mass-energy, then there's no question of 'beginning to exist'. Mass-energy is, therefore spacetime is. Before time was, I AM, says mass-energy ex hypothesi.

stating their conclusion after deep contemplation on the subject.

So they're offering hypotheses, but not supporting them, rather like I am. Mine are in principle falsifiable but in fact unfalsified. Is there any way of falsifying theirs?

Aupmanyav does not exist. He is just a perturbation in the force field.

What force field, in your terms? Is it real? If so, why is a coherent perturbation in it, such as you say we each are, not an aspect, an element, of reality? And if the existence of physical objects is not real, what is it instead? After all (going back to Berkeley) they're still there when there's no one around, that is, they have objective existence.

And if it too is not real, then nothing is left to be real. Which seems an odd way to regard the manifest reality in which we biological creatures form, breathe, fight, work, think, reproduce and die.

I never die.

How do you know?

How can a monist die?

As a fan of a monist hypothesis, I reply, In the usual way.

Death of a true monist will mean folding up the universe. Am I not 'what exists'?

We're biochemical / bioelectrical patterns that form in parts of what exists. When those parts irreversibly cease to maintain the pattern, we die. The parts are recyclable, nothing (if we put Star Trek beaming to one side) suggests the pattern is. (As we develop AI, however, we may be able to make self-aware patterns that can be duplicated: H sap mechanicus is presently the only prospect for a human to travel to the stars, for example.)

The perturbations will continue to happen in spaces that I occupied in past, am occupying in present and all spaces that I will occupy in future, irrespective of whether you call me living or dead.

Spaces in what, exactly?

How can you tell?

And what do you say "I" is here? (For me, "I" is my sense of self, generated by the patterns in my biochemical brain, the "I" who looks out through my eyes.)

Evolution gifted us a brain 700 million years ago. We can do a lot with it. Perhaps even find the "Absolute Truth" (Paramarthika Satya).

I think we already have. The absolute truth is expressed as, There are no absolute truths outside this sentence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"I'm a monist about mass-energy, .. What is the subject of your monism?": I too am an energy monist. I am a strong atheist, so I am not into Gods. The subject of my monism is 'truth'. I have already proceeded as far as was possible. Now I wait for science to gather more data.

"I'm attracted to my hypothesis for the very reason that it doesn't require phases, doesn't require true non-existence at any point - that is, time exists because mass-energy does, not vice versa.": If it does not require phases, then how does it explain the first appearance of energy or 'what exists'? Mass-energy, space and time, all are related. One is not without the others.

"On our present understanding, no, energy doesn't flit between existence and non-existence. Instead there are no extant counterexamples to the principle that energy is indestructible, can neither be created nor destroyed.": We do know what 'virtual particles' do. Non-existence does not mean destruction of energy (it is a sort of subsidence of energy). Energy can appear again with space and time.

"But if time is a property of mass-energy, then there's no question of 'beginning to exist'. Mass-energy is, therefore spacetime is. Before time was, I AM, says mass-energy ex hypothesis.": The Trinity, as I stated above. Phases, subside and appear again together. A cycle like in Hindu concept of creation and dissolution, or continuous creation and dissolution in Multiverse scenarios. I don't know.

"So they're offering hypotheses, but not supporting them, ..": In their time (around 1,000 BCE), there was not much they could offer as evidence. It was the best they could stretch their thinking to. Even now, we can not offer anything more than that - monism. They were our monist predecessors.

"Is it real? If so, why is a coherent perturbation in it, such as you say we each are, not an aspect, an element, of reality? And if the existence of physical objects is not real, what is it instead? After all (going back to Berkeley) they're still there when there's no one around, that is, they have objective existence.": The perturbation is real. It is a inherent property of energy. Coherent perturbation - that is a good point. I think it is something like agglutination, forming of a set, like in a human body; or the building, lawns and trees of Berkeley. The Sets persist and do not require any one to be around. Living or dead, I would have the same appearance till this set is broken and the constituents become the part of a new set/sets - Chemical recycling.

".. Which seems an odd way to regard the manifest reality ..": The reality is not manifest, it is hidden and difficult to realize. What we perceive is only subjective, an illusion, 'maya', which is dictated by evolution.

"How do you know? .. We're biochemical / bioelectrical patterns that form in parts of what exists. When those parts irreversibly cease to maintain the pattern, we die. The parts are recyclable, nothing (if we put Star Trek beaming to one side) suggests the pattern is.": Even after I am dead, every atoms of my body will be kicking and frolicking. That never stops. The perturbations will continue for ever. I am not a believer of rebirth/reincarnation. Call it dying or call it change of form. Krishna said in Gita:

BG 2.12: Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.
BG 2.17: That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible. No one is able to destroy that imperishable.
BG 2.22: As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones, it similarly accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones.
(If you try to find Gita translations on internet, you would find the mention of the Supreme God or soul, but in orginal Sanskrit verses, these are not always mentioned. These are interpolations by theist translators)

"Spaces in what, exactly?": The volumes (dimensions, coordinates) that I fill in past, present and future. It is the perturbations in these volumes that gives rise to the false feeling that Aupmanyav exists.

"And what do you say "I" is here? (For me, "I" is my sense of self, generated by the patterns in my biochemical brain, the "I" who looks out through my eyes.)": This 'I' 'who looks through my eyes' is only an illusion. There is no real 'I' other than 'what exists, physical energy'. The rest, as you said, is generated by the patterns in our biological brain. I do not believe in existence of 'soul'.

"I think we already have. The absolute truth is expressed as, There are no absolute truths outside this sentence.": Well, you are welcome to your views. I think we still have to find the answer to the mystery of the Trinity - Energy, Space and Time.

 

[atanu]

You can seek truth by enquiring about real things so as to make accurate statements about them ('truth'). You may be trying to establish whether there are heavier Higgs bosons than the one we found, or where you might have lost your cell phone, or when the last train to Clarksville is scheduled to leave on Sundays. The principle is the same (as is the test).

Or you can simply deal in truth, making statements about reality that you've known for a long time were true.

Okay. Thanks. But your use of the the phrase ‘real things’ rankles me. If you already know real things you know the truth.

My problem is with the word ‘real’ and not with ‘things’. By ‘real’ do you mean intellectually-sensual-physically graspable objects?

 

[tayla]

Right now, I want you to breakdown step-by-step, or crunched down to your best, the very best possible explanation you have at this moment, of the secrets of life and the universe, and what they resonate to you.

Truth must be provable to be truth. The only thing that qualifies is the scientific method. But the scientific method is based on philosophy, so we must allow for some of philosophy. Therefore, we can claim that the subjective experience of consciousness (and other observable non-material aspects of reality) are real and non-material.

In my view, anything outside of science via the scientific method resides in the spiritual realm. The only thing knowable about the spiritual realm is what's in it; you can't know anything about the structure and functioning of the spiritual realm. Revealed religion and revealed spiritual paths do not generate trustworthy knowledge. If you want to believe something about the spiritual realm, this should be based on philosophy. There's not much more to it.

 

[ObjectOfMercy]

Right now, I want you to breakdown step-by-step, or crunched down to your best, the very best possible explanation you have at this moment, of the secrets of life and the universe, and what they resonate to you.

Christ is Truth. Christ is All. Christ is Life. I must have Christ. That I may be found in Him, not having my own righteousness which is of the law (impossible to attain) but the righteousness of God, the righteousness which is of God by faith. To know Him and the power of His resurrection.

 

[Craig Sedok]

Right now, I want you to breakdown step-by-step, or crunched down to your best, the very best possible explanation you have at this moment, of the secrets of life and the universe, and what they resonate to you.

If everything is relative and sits under the lamp of truth, which is absolute, you should have no problem freely expressing your ultimate picture of the universe unscrutinized and unscrupulous under its light knowing full well that everything that cometh from the human mouth is filtered and an crafted lie.
That which is perceiveth and thrown into words and uttered is filtered by that very organ to which Jesus fought with and is hereby proclaim Satan or the Human Mind.

But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

Outside of mathematical, if god wanted to create, he would make a garden and let it sprout whatever may grow. And by mathematical He may have meant some special numbers like what is quoted in some texts or versions of bibles. Lucifer was cast for trying too hard to make man see. like, you can't rush a good thing. So, here we are. Heinz catsup, or ketchup. lol

 

[Willamena]

Right now, I want you to breakdown step-by-step, or crunched down to your best, the very best possible explanation you have at this moment, of the secrets of life and the universe, and what they resonate to you.

If everything is relative and sits under the lamp of truth, which is absolute, you should have no problem freely expressing your ultimate picture of the universe unscrutinized and unscrupulous under its light knowing full well that everything that cometh from the human mouth is filtered and an crafted lie.
That which is perceiveth and thrown into words and uttered is filtered by that very organ to which Jesus fought with and is hereby proclaim Satan or the Human Mind.

But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

No one can give you truth: it's not theirs to give.