« Ryan Anderson: What Is Marriage? | Main | Links Mentioned on the Show »

February 08, 2013

Comments

Erkki,

2 posts here to fit it in….

1 of 2:

You seek to understand the nature of reality. You seek your TOE. A noble endeavor.

Unfortunately, you are confusing Logic and Truth by asserting, without success, that any Logic which does not grant you a grand TOE is not telling us Truth-Full things.

You seem to regress always to something like this: TOE = Truth. Nothing else equals Truth.

A few points already covered need to be repeated here before we get to our TOE:

It seems you (Erkki) are all about some statement that, first, is immune to dissection, and, now, or of late, somehow speaks of the nature of reality.

I am not interested in your definitions and infinite regresses to TOE/Omniscience. I want to know if Mind can Know an Absolute Truth immune to any new data despite not knowing infinitely.

And it can.

Let us repeat a few such statements here:
“Actuality” just always “is”. Real-ity just always “is”. The Actual State Of Affairs is Ever-Present. Truth cannot not-exist. If there just is nothing at all, no material, no god, just nothing, then, this does not change, (as discussed earlier). The statement is immune to contextual changes of every kind, and no new data can alter it (as discussed earlier). And this is so whether we have material stuff or not, whether we have time or not. “The Actual State Of Affairs” just always is.

Immunity: we say of the ‘Real-ITY Exists’ Absolute-Truth which is immune to any new data and to ever finer slices of dissections, this: My Mind knows this truth. Then this: Mind, via Hand, can write this upon parchment, and so forth and so on. We could easily speak combinations and permutations into the trillions ever farther down-stream from our initial starting point of One Absolute Everlasting Truth.

The paragraph above this one shows us a few of the first of what can easily be trillions of links in an unbroken chain of absolute truths all grounded upon One-Everlasting-Absolute-Truth. Mind Knows these, yet, Mind is not Omniscient.

Knowing an Absolute Truth, and, having Certainty, do not require Omniscience.

We end up with things like this: Omniscience is not necessary for Certainty. Or, ABCD is not necessary for B. B just is enough for B, and, so, the A, C, and D are not needed. B = B. And so on and so on.

B = B. ABCD has B within it but it has B and more. If all we need is B, then B. The Truth-Ness Real-ITY which this ‘B = B’ is chained to with an unbroken chain is “Omniscience is not necessary for Certainty”.

Does B = B tell us anything about the nature of Real-ITY here? Of course it does.

Mirrors are funny that way.

It is a pattern which mirrors that nature, that fabric. In fact, B = B is True only because it reflects the patterns of actual real-ity.

Is Logic Truth Erkki?

Well, let me ask you this: Is my image in the mirror the real me? No. Okay then: Does the image in the mirror tell us anything about the real me?


Of course it does.

And this is what you (Erkki) are trying to say mirrors cannot do.

This is why 1 = 1 is a falsehood in his (your) philosophy. “It is the image in the mirror, not the real reality!”

"This mirror tells me NOTHING about my face!"

On Erkki’s example of failure to inform him of the nature of reality, we must ask him to define “nature of reality”.

Well?

But his definition will always regress to yet smaller slices.

Bob: Light.

Erkki: No. That won’t do. “Light” tells me nothing. Reality is Particle-Wave.

Bob: Particle. Wave.

Erkki: No. That won’t do. “Particle. Wave” tells me nothing. What is INSIDE the particle?

Bob: LP-Quark-S.

Erkki: No. That won’t do. “LP-Quark-S” tells me nothing about the nature of reality.

And so the endless regress goes on and on. Notice that Erkki is all the while employing those very languages he disdains to progress ever downstream.

Erkki,

2 of 2:

TOE:

The world of physics is excitingly moving downstream into some odd places as we try to develop TOE’s. But notice the entire journey in this act-of-knowing-reality just does take place within, not isolated Logic, not isolated Reason, not Isolated Empirical Data, not isolated Mathematics, not isolated languages of the Rational, but, in just all of them together.


Erkki is always going to defer until we have a TOE, but, he will be disappointed. The TOE, when it comes, will be full of Words and Symbols and Numbers and Signs, and, to his horror, it will be full of Non-Contradictions, and, this will make him vomit, those who develop it will have revised it along the way exactly to satisfy those laws of logic.


TOE’s are wonderfully fun. But Erkki’s ever appeal to the ever-down-stream as “that which is real” and his ever assassination of present slices as useless in that journey is inane. The nature of reality is reflected in in all of it and to varying degrees.

All Erkki is doing is claiming that Omniscience must be granted him, or, we must give to him EVERY SLICE and ALL ABSOLUTE TRUTHS otherwise we DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE NATURE OF REALITY.

Mirrors tell us nothing about the shape of my face!!

Innane.

He (you, Erkki) will always say, “This tells us nothing about the real nature of reality” until he is presented with Omniscience.

First, we’ve already shown that Omniscience is not necessary for Mind to know an Absolute Truth about the everlasting state of affairs, and, secondly, because that proof is available to us, we can say with absolute certainty that he is simply wrong in his description of Know-Ing-Real-Ity.


Erkki:

I am looking forward to your example of the Empirical in TOTAL ISOLATION. No Logic. No Reason. No Symbol. No language of the Rational. No mathematics.

......until he is presented with Omniscience.....

That could be interesting. My-Mind does not need Omniscience to know-of-Omni nor to know Absolute Everlasting Truths. Now those Truths do seem to necessitate the All-Truth. The Omni. It seems we are fated to be presented with Omni necessarily or inevitably, for, both Capacity to Drink such Everlasting Water and such Water cleary exist.

Water flows downhill, afterall.

Just as all the talk of Contextual Knowing has only confirmed the Triune God, so too here all this talk of "needing omni" has brought the skeptic to yet another confirmation of what the Hebrew and the Christian have always known via that same Triune God......

    But notice the entire journey in this act-of-knowing-reality just does take place within, not isolated Logic, not isolated Reason, not Isolated Empirical Data, not isolated Mathematics, not isolated languages of the Rational, but, in just all of them together.

Yeah, obviously none of them are completely isolated. But it is still very helpful to know which part of your knowledge is simply data and which one is the theory.

    All Erkki is doing is claiming that Omniscience must be granted him, or, we must give to him EVERY SLICE and ALL ABSOLUTE TRUTHS otherwise we DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE NATURE OF REALITY.

    Mirrors tell us nothing about the shape of my face!!

Except this is pretty much the opposite of everything what I have said. I have precisely said that there is no need for "truths" or "absolutes" in order have facts or knowledge about nature of reality. But it can be very useful to understand the limits of your knowledge. Yeah, the mirror can tell you something about your face, but if you confuse the image in the mirror with your actual face, youre gonna be in a whole lot of trouble at least when the mirror breaks.

    I am looking forward to your example of the Empirical in TOTAL ISOLATION. No Logic. No Reason. No Symbol. No language of the Rational. No mathematics.

Why should it be in total isolation? When I say that I prefer empirical over rational, what I generally mean is that if data is in conflict with theory, go with the data. If there is no data, be extra careful when making assertions. Garbage in, garbage out is still pretty much the ground rule of thinking.

Again, give me an example without using Logic or Symbol.

btw... "light" may be data, unless we eqivocate to wave & particle.... in which case flashes of light is not data.

Still awaiting example.....

Again, give me an example without using Logic or Symbol.

I could step on your toe, were we not on the Internet. That would be a way to give you data without symbols or logic.

Sorry, forgot the quotation marks.

The data says we cannot communicate or know stuff if void of Logic, Reason, and Symbol & all in Relation to Context.

Knowing just is Contextual & Relational & Word for Omniscience Himself just is such.

Triune.

Go with the data.

You are still relying on Reason & Logic with Pain, Erkki.

Try again.

Feelings are Data? Do they tell us what is real?

    Feelings are Data? Do they tell us what is real?

Do you think sunsets or stars are beautiful? Did you happen to use logic or reason to come to that conclusion?

"It is logical that sunsets are beautiful".

The answer to your question: yes.

Feelings void of Logic? Data?

Your last post did not tell me a trueness of reality....

    Feelings void of Logic? Data?

Well, if you take a camera and capture the "data" that is sunset, or stars shining on a cold night, does it feel even remotely what you feel when you look at the actual sunset?

Not everything can be reduced to information.

All I mean is that you are, as I am, employing logic & reason & symbol in various permutations here to capture reality. It is not either/or. Agree about information...... Word/ Person/Mind helps even a bit further.....

    All I mean is that you are, as I am, employing logic & reason & symbol in various permutations here to capture reality. It is not either/or.

I have never claimed it is either/or. Quite frankly, I do not even understand what exactly all this has to do with the topic. World is not black and white. It is also not dull grey.

Okay, I'm gonna give you an example.

1. I have two apples. I counted them.
2. Democracy is better then dictatorship.

Are these two ideas equally abstract? Is one them not true? Are they equally based on logic and less on values? Or equally based on values, less on logic?

Well.... I'm a "rationalist" and you are a "empericist"..... its a false dichotomy. There is not a single post here which has not in part or in whole employed reason, data, logical inference, symbol, and so forth in exactly all of our utterances and neither of us is tossing out data......

2= 2 is not True according to you.

What I mean is, I dont know what you mean by "count".

    Well.... I'm a "rationalist" and you are a "empericist"..... its a false dichotomy.

It's not a false dichotomy. The first example is clearly more concrete example then the second one, and can be deduced pretty much completely by empirical means, where as the second one is a lot more abstract and requires way more rational thinking and un-empirically deduced ethical values. They are not all a sweet fine mess of one part logic, one part data, one part symbol.

This made me laugh

Considering that we live in a world where it is quite routine to be killed or tortured for holding different ideas and opinions, I'm going to roll my eyes just a little bit if you say these evil absolutists are just a straw-man, or literally everyone accepts the limits of logic and data, because the way I see it, it takes quite a bit of education to get over Dunning-Kruger effect and accept the fact your knowledge may be even less limited then you think.
Yes. 'Absolutism' is definitely what's responsible for Hitler et al. Everyone knows that the Third Reich, Soviet Russia, Mao's China etc. were rife with Kantians and Christian fundamentalists.

Well...no not really. That's actually absurd.

In any event, this thread is now officially dead by Godwin's Law.

The first example is not at all concrete. "Count"?

1? 2? Mathematics? Concrete?

    Well...no not really. That's actually absurd.

What's so absurd about it? I am reasonably sure that the mindset of the Nazis was not "well, I'm not quite sure, but it seems to me us Aryans are the master race." Or "well, there is no absolute truth and information is not perfect, but those Jews kind of look to me like responsible for the downfall of Western Civilization."

Obviously no single idea such as "absolutism" is responsible for every horror of existence, but I don't think it quite escapes the hook also.

Absolutists.... I think by "hook" you mean Non-Reality or Un-Truth?

As I said before. Godwin's Law.

I do find it amusing that you think that individuals need certainty in order to kill each other.

I'm pretty sure that more people have been killed by relativists who weren't sure of their status (and who would at least claim, however dishonestly, to have an 'open' mind about their status) in abortion clinics across America than Stalin or Pol Pot ever killed in their wildest fever dreams.

Erkki,

1 of 2:

“It's not a false dichotomy. The first example is clearly more concrete example then the second one, and can be deduced pretty much completely by empirical means…”


If it is more/less then it is still both/and and not either/or. It is still a mixture, which we cannot escape. Not in Knowing and not in Communicating.

It is a false dichotomy because there is no such thing as an utterance which is not a mixture of Reason, Logic, Symbol, Data and so forth. You sliced Brad B and myself “off of” your platform as if we are standing on two different hilltops with your rather clear remarks about “rationalist” vs. “empericalist”. Then, to make matters worse, you implied that your platform embraces data more tightly and that our platform somehow fails to “go with the data” when theory and data conflict.

First of all, there is a tiny bit of arrogance in the air with that comment. I mean, really, not I and not you are tossing data out the window in our utterances here. Or in our thinking.

Secondly, you have yet to provide this separation of “pure data” from “pure logic/rational” to us with an example that is not a mixture of all these modes and avenues that just are the stuff of know-ing.

Counting and Hook are quite confusing to me as I do not think you believe either to very concrete, yet, you use counting as a way to separate “your way of thinking” (concrete?) from “my way of thinking” (abstract?) as if one of us is not “going with the data” when theory and data conflict.

The whole example of counting is a mixture: not either/or. Numbers and all that. Rationalist/Empericists is either/or and is a false dichotomy because no one thinks entirely and only in one arena or the other. In fact, it is my contention here that it is quite impossible to do so simply because the act of knowing just does entail all of the above in various mixtures.

Erkki,

2 of 2:

We cannot give an example of Knowing and or Communicating that is not contaminated on some level by two or more of Symbol, Logic, Reason, Rational Inference, Physical Data, or perhaps Mathematics. In fact, we must use Reason itself merely to fashion any example at all, thus, should we succeed, we will be beholden to Reason for having gotten us there. Rational Inference will tell us if any of the above is contaminated, for, Symbol alone cannot tell us that. Logic will creep in beneath the surface with [A and B are different] as we reason our way to some example to offer here. And so on and so on. Mind precedes all Concrete examples we can give and thus you cannot escape those processes as just every utterance will be contaminated by them at some point in the assembly line within Mind.


I like your example of Pain. Pain is data. Feelings are Data. Hunger is Data. Fear is data. Now, if there is no Mind on the receiving end, then there is no Knowing. Now, Communicating in an arena void of Knowing (TV remotes, biological reflexes) is not something I’m interested in as it just is not at all what we’ve been exploring here in this thread. “How do we know” is what this is all about, and, “What can we know”. If you mean to equate Knowing-Less arenas with the arena of this thread dealing with Know-ing then you are saying A = B and ‘therefore’ the rules of A apply to the rules of B. Logic tells us you are entirely mistaken in such a case. A = A. A does not equal B. Mirrors are helpful like that. There is such a thing, I agree, as TV remotes and biological reflexes. Neither is related to Mind. Each is Mind-Less. Where there is Mind we find that Pain, Fear, Hunger, and so forth are, the moment they enter consciousness, contaminated by all those subtle little subjective somethings bouncing around inside our heads. A patient under general anesthesia will react to surgical incision (data) with an increased heart rate, rise in blood pressure, etc. yet will not have “pain” or “fear”. A = A. Logic here tells us something True about the real nature of Knowing and Communicating. Those mirrors are helpful like that.

Being an novice I must often look up various references:


Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies) is an argument made by Mike Godwin in 1990 that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches. In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion—regardless of topic or scope—someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.

SCBLHRM-

The Godwin's Law invocation was directed at Erkki.

There's a corollary to the law that goes like this:

Once such a comparison (with Nazis) is made, the thread is finished, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.
My contention is that Erkki's comment timestamped "February 13, 2013 at 02:31 AM" makes just such a reference, not to Nazis directly but to shadowy totalitarian 'absolutists'...which is just as absurd.

I know :) but I honestly had to look it up.... tough hanging out with you guys.... but always beneficial

WL,

By 'tough' I simply mean I'm always having to look stuff up......remember that feeling you had on your first day at college?

Sorry guys, I have mixed comments in this post. Find your own :)

    As I said before. Godwin's Law.

You can't really evoke Godwin's Law, since you're the one who brought up Nazis. I don't know why, it's not like there aren't lot of current day totalitarian systems. I don't think North Korean official line is "Kim-Il Sung is most likely the Eternal President".

    I do find it amusing that you think that individuals need certainty in order to kill each other.

Well, it's not like they need certainty, but it obviously helps if you can first brush entire sections of people as being "clearly" on the wrong side and completely dishonest, because after all, "truth is obvious and absolute."

    I'm pretty sure that more people have been killed by relativists who weren't sure of their status (and who would at least claim, however dishonestly, to have an 'open' mind about their status) in abortion clinics across America than Stalin or Pol Pot ever killed in their wildest fever dreams.

Well, in that case I sincerely hope that people have not already decided that fetus is not a person, this knowledge is absolutely true, and no further information is needed. Or have this false "openness" to ideas that you mention. Obviously this is not rightist/leftist issue.

    It is a false dichotomy because there is no such thing as an utterance which is not a mixture of Reason, Logic, Symbol, Data and so forth. You sliced Brad B and myself “off of” your platform as if we are standing on two different hilltops with your rather clear remarks about “rationalist” vs. “empericalist”.

Well, I admit that it may have been unfair generalization. It is my experience that religious people tend to put more weight on the rational side of knowledge, because most religious claims are generally of the sort where not a whole lot of empirical data exist (unless you have literally walked in afterlife) and a strong philosophical and monastic tradition.

    The whole example of counting is a mixture: not either/or. Numbers and all that. Rationalist/Empericists is either/or and is a false dichotomy because no one thinks entirely and only in one arena or the other. In fact, it is my contention here that it is quite impossible to do so simply because the act of knowing just does entail all of the above in various mixtures.

I never claimed that it is completely either/or, because obviously most claims about reality are mixture of logic, intuition, and empirical data. But like the examples I showed, it is not impossible or hard to put some claims being clearly in the empirical basket, while others require more rational thinking and heavy deduction. So this is how I can justify when I mean that on purely abstract level one can obviously make claims that are "true" such as 1=1, 1+1=2, it doesn't mean this truth necessarily "carries over" when you move to empirical realm. Again, what is the obviously true claim on an empirical level, when you say 1=1?

In any case, it's not like the only or even the main damaging aspect of the idea of "absolute, objective truths" is that it breeds extremism. If you think about the role of academia, then obviously their main goal should be to compete different ideas and viewpoints, encourage people to think outside the box, ask unlikely questions and breed intellectual curiosity. If you think these goals, it would not be surprising like the OP states that most professors would be prone to claim that "objective truths do not exist", because there is nothing or little to gain from promoting this viewpoint. If the "truths" are objective and "absolute" in some way that they are unquestionable, then obviously this does nothing to stimulate intellectual curiosity, preaches complacency and intellectual laziness, and unwarranted self-gratification for discovering such "truths." So even if not most logically sound, it is still probably a good starting point.

The above post has an error, the following sentence should have been: because there is nothing or little to gain from promoting this viewpoint that they do.

The point on Godwin's law is that to take the view that there are absolute truths like "1=1" and compare it to any kind of totalitarianism is as good as comparing it to Nazism. It's absurd and unserious.

And so, for the last time on this dead thread: Godwin's Law.

Erkki,


I think mixture is still alive and well really in our Knowing and in your examples here. You say, "clearly in the empirical basket" and then you claim “Counting” or “math” or 1=1 is wholly unempirical with: "what is the obviously true claim on an empirical level, when you say 1=1?"


Thus on your own terms you are not "clearly" anywhere in that example but in the middle of a mixture and, all the while, (and this is a problem for your thesis) you are actually (even if you are not aware of it) employing Logic (A is not B) and Reasoning (continuity of thought) and Symbol (language) in your entire assembly line from Mind to Keyboard.


Can you give an example of something a little more "nearly pure empirical" without employing these tools as you have here? I agree that you have not committed to pure isolation, but you, even in this last post, continue to stereotype groups of people in nearly isolated modes of thinking. Apparently “someone” is not following the data when data and theory conflict?

We are talking, not about groups of people, Erkki, but about “How do we do the act of knowing” and about “What can we know”.

Well: the empiricist is beholden to the rationalist in all of his utterances, and, the rationalist is beholden to the empiricist in all of his. When we break down just what we are doing in know-ing this become apparent.

I’m not sure about the utility of your stereotypes so I’ll leave them alone.


On Absolute Truth, it just cannot not-exist as already commented on. From that launching point, one can easily build an unbroken chain of comments, as already commented on.


Truth = Actuality As It Actually Is. Some like the word ‘Reality’. You seem to like “The Full Nature of Reality”.

Okay then:

Truth-Is.
Actuality-Is.
It never has not-been.
It cannot not-exist.

Absolute Truth has always been. It cannot not-be.

Mind knows this.
Mind can, via Hand, write this.
Mind can teach other Minds this.


Some of those are truths immune to any new information. As we've seen earlier, if all we are doing is counting aggregating utterances which are thus immune, it matters not how we define Mind.


Mind can die. Material can never exist at all. Time can never exist at all. There can be no God. Yet the statement Actuality-Always-Exists describes the everlasting state of affairs.

When the Hebrew and the Christian employ the word "God" one of the things they mean is "Everlasting Truth". “He Who never changes”. “I-AM”. “I-AM-TRUTH”. And so forth.


Knowing just is Contextual, as the Triune Topography of God’s Interior proves to us. The Hebrew (in part) and the Christian (in full) have always known this, as already commented on earlier.


And so on and so on........

Absolute Truth statements describing everlasting states of affairs of actuality as it actually is and which are immune to Omniscience are both Known and Knowable. How that Truth impacts Mind in many arenas is both known and knowable.

We can quibble about many things, but that Absolute Truth cannot not-exist, well, that is immune to any new information.

    The point on Godwin's law is that to take the view that there are absolute truths like "1=1" and compare it to any kind of totalitarianism is as good as comparing it to Nazism. It's absurd and unserious.

I didn't hint that believing 1=1 equals Nazism. I offered you a counter-example for when you said that everyone youve met clearly accepts the following, and we need not to worry about these imaginary absolutists:

4. Because of this, it takes extremely arrogant mindset to declare, final, absolute statements about reality that would not be open to possibility of said revision, additional information, or more clearly defined concepts, especially when talking about complicated subjects or vague concepts.

Whos the everyone? It's not like it was a long time ago when doubting publicly the Divine Wisdom of the King would get you in the dungeon pretty fast. It is more norm then exception that people who hold different ideas about vague subjects such as metaphysics and ethics will get killed or harmed. This is why, as much as always, we need ideas like: there is no absolute truth.

    I think mixture is still alive and well really in our Knowing and in your examples here. You say, "clearly in the empirical basket" and then you claim “Counting” or “math” or 1=1 is wholly unempirical with: "what is the obviously true claim on an empirical level, when you say 1=1?"

It is not the counting part that makes this empirical, it is the fact that if I claim that I have two apples, then everyone who wants find information about this can come in and see these two real-life apples, on the table, for themselves. Where as your 1=1 does not make any this sort of empirical claim. What is the "1" that absolutely, unquestionably, equals "1" in the real world? What is it?

Erkki,

1) Emperically speaking, how many [Full Nature Of Actuality] would you say exists?


2) Emperically speaking, how many "Planets named Earth by Man" would you say exist?


3) Emperically speaking, how many.... and so on.

Not theoretically....

If you have empirical data, and not theory, of the Multi-Verse, we can add that into number one here, and so still have but "1" Full Actuality, etc.

This is not “things that exist right now” or “things as they are arranged right now” but, Actual-ITY, and so forth, as already discussed, with the Full Nature thereof.


Now then, from there, we go here:

Empirically speaking, number 1 above has this answer: Exactly 1. M-Theory, if you have any Emperical data (and not Theory) would simply lump into this Singular-Whole. But we are speaking “empirical”. Thus, which of the following is empirically True on and in and of The Full Nature Of Reality (your preferred definition of Truth),

1) The answer to number 1 above is 1 exactly

2) The answer to number 1 above is 1.0000000001

3) The answer to number 1 above is 1.000000000001

4) The answer to number 1 above is 1.00000000000001

And so on…..

Then, from there,

Truth = The Full Nature Of Reality (your preferred definition)

From here we launch out and start our unbroken chain of just all sorts of Absolute Truth’s tied to, grounded upon, linked to, that One Everlasting Unchanging Truth…………….

God cannot not-exist.

I will grant or assume that exactly 1 is the answer. I will even grant M-Theory as that changes nothing.

“1”.

Which of the following is equal to that “1”

A) 1
B) 1.000000000000000
C) 1.00000000000000001

1 = A, or, 1=B, or, 1=C?

If you we offer that there is but one full nature of reality then we have our Perfect 1.

Now, you have said before that 1 never equals exactly 1.

We see that that is incorrect (empirically speaking and theoretically speaking if we assume M-Theory).

Empirically speaking, the Perfect-1 exists.

That is “True” and even is speaking of Reality, not Theory.

(there was still Empirically speaking, How Many Planets named Eearth exist and so forth, though, M-Theory could change that number. But, empirical...)


Grounded upon that Truth of Reality, we have 1=A as yet another Reality-Truth. It is not reflecting some abstract something, but is a Truth Statement on the Full Nature of Realty (Truth) and thus is itself a Truth Statement grounded on and in and of the Full Nature of Reality.

1=A.
1=1.

Now, “How do we know” and “What can we know” makes this particular 1=A quite interesting for it is linked by an unbroken chain to the empirical data (I’d even grant M-Theory) on the Truth Of All Things (Reality) and there is where 1=1, formally merely a Truth Statement of great empirical truth now becomes another kind of Truth Statement of great curiosity to Mind as we explore what Mind-Knows.

"How do we know" and "What do we know" and "What is the Full Nature of Reality" are all, empirically touched by this 1=1 in this very concrete, data-only arena.


1=1 is a truth claim for the "rationalist".

For the "empiricist" there is also a PERFECT-1.

We have one universe (empirically), one earth (emperically), and so forth, but, even empirically speaking we have one Actual-ITY. M-Theory, if we ever have empirical stuff there, will not change the ITY.

ITY = Exactly 1 empirically speaking.

ITY = Exactly 1 theoretically speaking.

ITY = Exactly 1 rationallly speaking.


Now, if no Mind exists, no god, no material, no Time, no anything, ITY still exixts, still is 1 exactly, and still cannot not-exist.

What is the "1" that absolutely, unquestionably, equals "1" in the real world? What is it?

Universe.
Earth.
Real-ITY.
Actual-ITY.

M-Theory cannot change ITY for obvious reasons. But, we are not talking about theory. We are talking about empirical stuff, but, even if we grant M-Theory, we have our Perfect-1.

Another way to look at it Erkki is "TOE".

Now, emperically we have 1 universe, 1 reality, and 1 real-ITY. But in theory we have a TOE and the "E" is also a Perfect 1.

E = ITY = 1 = Full Nature.

I don't like this approach but others may like it......


Erkki,

Be careful not to mistake reality for Real-ITY. Empirically there is 1 Universe. One E. M-Theory would take us here: we can go even further with ITY for Real-ITY itself is intact even without universes or even with many of them.

To quote Erkki, "Okay, so basically what you are saying is that because "reality exists" is obviously truth, because if it were not, then of course this whole conversation would not exist an would be thus irrelevant, so there exists at least one absolute truth that can not be changed with any new information. Well, obviously that's something."

Reality exists, and only one, whatever it is, and it is thus whether we have many universes, no unverses, or something in between.

Upon this One-Everlasting-Unchanging-Truth we can begin building our chain.....

A brief summary on the Actual Nature of Reality touched on in this thread:


Ultimate Reality is Self-Existing.

Ultimate Reality is Everlasting.

Ultimate Reality is Unchanging.

Ultimate Reality is One.

Ultimate Reality is Truth in the Empirical.

Ultimate Reality is Truth in the Theoretical.

Ultimate Reality is Truth in the Rational.

Epistemology in all Vectors is Triune. Know-Ing just is Contextual and Relational within the Triune Topography of God’s Interior. The Hebrew (in part) and the Christian (in full) have always known this.

Logic feigns a regress to Self-Evidence and is found sustained quite easily within Epistemology's Triune Topography.

Ontology in all Vectors is Triune. I. We. They. You. Us. Me. Ontology itself regresses to the singular and pleural amid the I and the You and the singular I-You for Being itself regresses to Love's embrace among the I and the You wherein the Singular-We streams uncreated. The Hebrew (in part) and the Christian (in full) have always known this.

Mind possesses Capacity to Know Absolute Truth.

Absolute Truth exists and is One, and is Everlasting, and is Unchanging, and is Self-Existing. The Hebrew and the Christian have always known this.

Mind can, and does, via Hand, write Absolute-Truth in Word, upon parchment.

Mind can, and does, Teach Mind, Communicate with Mind, via Word.

Absolute Truth is in Word.

Word houses Absolute Truth.

In the Beginning, from Everlasting: Word.

Word is not Flesh yet Word becomes Flesh.

Love just is Triune in all Vectors amid the singular and pleural within the I and the You and the singular I-You as it regresses to Love's embrace among the I and the You wherein the Singular-We streams uncreated.

Erkki wrote: "However, because we are obviously part of the same reality and have limited perspective, the limits of communication and language, and because internalizing and obtaining 100% of all information is impossible, our statements about reality are always subject to revision, at least beyond any completely solipsist and totally abstract perspective."

Could you clarify this for me please? On the one hand, you say that, obviously, we are part of the same reality. However, you then go on to say that it is impossible to obtain 100 per cent of all information.

Am I mistaken in seeing a contradiction there? While you say you're sure we are part of the same reality, in the next breath you're saying it's impossible to know anything 100 per cent. That means that we cannot know that we are part of the same reality for sure, can we?

I guess what I'm trying to say is that, despite what postmodernism says about truth and reality not being thoroughly knowable, it IS possible to know some things 100 per cent. For example, I'm 100 per cent sure that I'm sitting here writing this.

And even if we don't know everything there is to know about something, it is important to recognize that we can know something truly without knowing it exhaustively. That is true of many subjects, including the subject of God and his absolutes.

    Could you clarify this for me please? On the one hand, you say that, obviously, we are part of the same reality. However, you then go on to say that it is impossible to obtain 100 per cent of all information.

    Am I mistaken in seeing a contradiction there? While you say you're sure we are part of the same reality, in the next breath you're saying it's impossible to know anything 100 per cent. That means that we cannot know that we are part of the same reality for sure, can we?

Okay, so there's two different type of ways to interpret your question, so I'm gonna answer them both.

1. How do we know 100% percent sure we exist in reality? Because when I say "We exist in reality" I am basically defining existence as "reality", not claiming "existence IS reality = true". So basically because I am the one doing the defining, I cannot be even in theoretical sense wrong, because there cannot exist any different data. One could always counter this with saying, "well, how do you know you exist?" Well, because if I wouldn't there would not be any "me" even typing these words so I guess this complete non-existent text doesn't matter anyway. However, any claim about reality could theoretically be false, because obtaining perfect data is impossible, because no matter whatever you claim, there could always theoretically exist a piece of information that would make your claim faulty or imperfect, and you do not or even can not know about it. Obviously this theoretical uncertainty is not much of an issue in real life. I could theoretically have forgotten my real name, but I'm reasonably sure I haven't and it's not like it matters anyway if I was, because people already know me by this name for all pragmatic purposes.

2. How do I know we all share the same reality in which we exist? Well, strictly speaking I don't. Maybe there are people who really do live in a completely different reality which I cannot access. However, I have not seen any reasonable evidence that this would be the case. For all pragmatic purposes, it seems humans share same reality.

The comments to this entry are closed.