Reality is...?

My Recent Posts

I want to “REALLY” write about the “UNBIASED TRUTH”.

When I break it all down the only real bias I have is for life. I don't argue for death, even though all life here struggles with the pure vanity of our circumstances. Though our circumstance amount to a zero sum gain for all the effort, I am hard pressed to convince myself the truth and certainty that rules the day is meaningless. So faced with this enigma of all “certaint vanity“, under these circumstances I feel like the paradigm is all wrong, and I felt inspired to write some thoughts and research about the truth. So here are some thoughts on the subject of searching for the truth. 

 

I don't live in the past, because the truth in in the now moment. All certainty is now, and that is all that matters. If one lets the past dictate the head, then one has a tail that wags the dog. The future has the promise of possibility, but as far as certainty in the future, this reality show could stop anytime for me. Thus, the uncertainty of the future is the absolute opposite of the virtue of certainty.

Bias can only function in a binary conceptual view of the world. Moreover, a binary view opens enough room for war to seep into the system. War is the dance of the nihilist, which is a world view that there is no absolute truth. Thus, all is meaningless and pure vanity for the nihilist world view. If one stares deep into this philosophy of meaningless one finds themselves in a rabbit hole of relativity and unsolvable paradoxical conundrums. Go too deep into the denial of absolute truth and one will question their own certainty. Thus it is a self defeating exercise that ends like a snuff flick. The War Dogs fearfully growl and howl their twisted and tortured logic like a swan song. In the depths of their hopelessness, a godless mindset takes hold. For if there is no God and afterlife what is there to render the outcome of our lives as anything more than vanity?  

 

The War Dogs chant war will bring peace, and the paradox of mutual assured destruction hypnotizes everyone, as they die in the countless liar paradoxes of their relativistic insanity-ad infinitum. It is the old war of one truth VS many truths. Monotheistic vs. Polytheistic. Uni-verse or Multi-verse. Absolute truth vs Relative bias truth. Had not Albert Eisenstein's theory of relativity possessed one constant, the speed of light, the outcomes would have been far more bazaar than they are already. If things that move at the speed of light experience "no time/space", then how is it possible to measure light moving X distance in Y time? Relativity is a contradiction/antithesis of absolute truth.

The only bias I have is for the abstract certainty that gives my soul life. Some call it truth. Some call it reality. Some call it God. Outside of this one bias I don’t seriously believe there is a true left and a true right side of the space I stand in. Rather, I believe the truth can only be divided and made to go to war with itself in the mind. And here I come to ask myself, am I of the truth and life or of the nihilist and extinction in my way of thinking?

When it comes to being bias the answer is behind our eyes and not before them. The mind speaks the truth in terms of relativity. The mind can't see the objective truth, even though, the truth is the very essence of ones soul-if not the very soul itself. It is written that "all souls belong to God". Much the same, my very certainty/soul belongs to reality in whole. I cannot see the world/room for what it is-a whole space. I walk into the room and my egocentricity labels one side this and the other side that. Before I entered the room there was unity and wholeness-no division. It is my mind that divides the truth in half and creates paradox, and the war of contradictions, and the logical mayhem of good vs. evil. All these qualities exist in the mind.

The truth is not good or bad. The truth is beyond such judgment. Who is above Reality/Truth/God to judge it one way or the other? And if reality were found guilty what punishment would one impose? The nature of truth is it cannot change.

As stated above, the truth is always in the now moment. Nothing happens in the past and nothing happens in the future. Reality is here and now, and the certainty does not move. Reality has no locality or dimension to move through. Thus the spirit of certainty is timeless as well. 1+ 1=2 for eternity because its true.

If you except by definition, or otherwise, that the truth cannot change or move, then one faces a serious contradiction to resolve. Take a look around and try to find something that does not change or move. Indeed, the virtues of truth do not correspond to most of what we interpret with the mind. If we can not see the virtues of truth in what we observe with the mind, then what we are seeing is by definition an illusion. If so, the illusion is deep in our minds. Truth/Reality/God is rendered a ghost of absolute abstract certainty with no face or condition, and all the rest of the moving parts are conditional and relative only to each other, and they clearly have no virtuous relationship to the truth. The truth is unconditional.

We have a binary view of everything. Good vs bad. War vs Peace. Black vs White. We are drowning in the fallout of our erroneous egocentric interpretation. All contradictions are a product of the mind. Reality does not argue or make war with itself. Reality/Truth/God only has one flavor of certainty. Certainty rule over uncertainty. Is the uncertainty principle certain? If not, then the uncertainty principle is meaningless.

The next thoughts I would like to share with you are about government and law. The law condemns us all. The laws exists for one reason only. Laws exist because most people are not good at govern themselves. If people could master governing themselves the laws would have no necessity. Government is a external expression of an internal human problem. The problem being lack of self governance. Because government is an invention of the mind, government is a play very similar to a liar paradox. All people being flawed, who watches the watchers? Who judges the judges?

Justice and injustice.
If there was no injustice what necessity would justice serve? Where there is justice there is injustice. To call for more justice is to ask for more injustice. Justice and injustice walk hand in hand. When I kill to eat it is a positive for me, but from the frame of reference of the innocent victim it is negative. Therefore, we see the same event is simultaneously positive and negative and only different in the minds of those involved.

So how do we deal with this? I suggest mercy before justice. Otherwise all will be found guilty right down to the judge. That is extinction, and that is nihilistic. So while it is true that justice walks hand in hand with injustice, it is also true that salvation walks hand in hand with mercy. For me it seems the true war is in my head and it is a war between truth and perception.

A death grip.
My last thoughts address the false idea I own something here. We are not born with a deed in one hand and a gun in the other. We don't own anything in this world. That's why we have to enforce our unlawful claims. Only when ones claims are true will reality step in and enforce them for you. If ones claims are not true, one holds the burden of their claim and must use FORCE to up hold it. Such ideas naturally introduce violence into the system when under crowded conditions and limited resources. And thus the world is what it is. The imaginary lines on the map move and the ink used to redraw them is blood.

The American bill of rights is a monument of our failure to REALLY get along with each other. One should look at it as a list of things we all have to work on. However, if one has to use FORCE & VIOLENCE to up hold the bill of rights, then one immediately fails, for such is a war with reality. One cannot use war to get to peace, especially when fighting reality. Those that kill monsters should be careful they don't become one. That is what has happened to the US justice system, and I‘m sure the same is true elsewhere. The justice system set out to en"force" the law and in the process became the criminal. If we all REALLY got along the bill of rights and laws would have never come to mind.

Reality has its own bill of rights. No one can read your mind. Thus you have privacy that no one can take from you. Nevertheless we are all born naked and must make the effort to dress ourselves for such forms of privacy. You have the right to express yourself. The fact of the matter is you cannot stop expressing yourself because reality backs that up. Your physical presence and body language is an expression. You see my point? If something is true reality steps in and enforces it and nothing can change it or control it without the use of their own willful force.

Irony is a sure sign that I am in a state of contradiction and at war with myself. Thus, the war is in my mind. It reality's way of kicking it back as a self defeating proposition which is what nihilism is well noted for. Anything that runs against the truth is pure vanity. And there you go. Take it for what its worth.

Comments

Leroy Added Feb 11, 2018 - 6:36am
We talk about natural law and the rights of man.  It's a beautiful concept, but isn't reality.  If we want to know natural law, we have to study the animal kingdom.  You are right; we are not born with deed in hand.  It is all a manmade concept.
 
Rules of engagement with our fellow man are useful, nevertheless.  The Bill of Rights is a good step in that direction.  In the natural world, the biggest, badest animal controls the turf.  Violence is the natural order of things.  A deed recognized by all leads to peace, not violence.  Ultimately, it is enforced by the barrel of a gun but is rarely necessary.  If we had no property rights, it would be a constant battle to control a piece of land.  We would need powerful kings and warlords. 
 
In the natural world, it is kill or be killed.  Establishing the rule that we shouldn't kill each other helps propagate the species.  It is enforced by the hangman's noose.  The threat of violence is better than violence.
 
We live in a time of relative peace.  It comes at a time where there is global recognition of property rights.  In the days of old, wars wiped out a third of the Chinese population.  We haven't seen anything like that in modern times, including the world wars.
Free Ear Candy Added Feb 12, 2018 - 6:06am
Thank you Leroy for your response. I updated this article because it was originally a comment I posted else where surrounding a topic that was mildly philosophic, and I was afterwards invited to share it here. The original article/comment only reflected issues of justice and injustice and some mild philosophical points to back up what I was trying to say about the subject of laws. I am new here so I'm not sure how things work around here and I hope you get this reply. If you do get this reply, then do read the revised article and lets take it from there. In the mean time I will consider you views and develop a response. Thanks Leroy! 
Doug Plumb Added Feb 12, 2018 - 8:34am
I think about these ideas as well. In your essay you say that only absolute truth can be found in the abstract. It is a product of reason and reason functions independent of empirical reality. We live in empirical reality, hence original sin.
  Law, mostly, is a replacement for revenge when our reason applied to the empirical world gets assaulted because its different for someone else and their empirical circumstance. Its justice replacing revenge in a civilized world. There is more to law, there is bills of exchange laws, ideas about possession that we share. The law provides a framework for peaceful commerce, and currency - can't have one without the other.
  Your ideas sound Kantian, but that doesn't mean you have read Kant. To me all other philosophers are dwarfed by Kant, made insignificant. Kant cleared the differences between empiricism and rationalism, united Plato and Aristotle in a sense.
  I did a movie on this called Dialectic, its on youtube. Its just me explaining Kant with the aid of some diagrams. I talk about Roman law in my essay called "White Genocide: Why?". I'm more of a reader than a writer.
  I think we have the knowledge to create a peaceful and better world, but in this we are threatened by the tragedy of perfection. I'm a conspiracy theorist and I think there is a monolithic conspiracy to destroy mans natural sense of justice so we can be herded and considered as livestock in law, this Talmudic law replacing existing Christian based law, which is what the West was built on. Ideas like evolution provide the soil for the materialistic point of view to rise in the consciousness of men.
Doug Plumb Added Feb 12, 2018 - 8:37am
Leroy re "We talk about natural law and the rights of man.  It's a beautiful concept, but isn't reality.  If we want to know natural law, we have to study the animal kingdom. "
 
Natural law has always meant more than natural law - it means the nature of men. The natural law you refer to is that the lion eats the gazell. Natural law means reasoned law, but they wrote natural law before Kant came along and straightened things out in terms of the real and the abstract.
  Everything centers about the idea of purpose. Purpose allows us to rise above animals - if this is actually possible, purpose and reason will get us there.
Dino Manalis Added Feb 12, 2018 - 8:40am
History is an important lesson we should learn from to avoid repeating the same mistakes and repeating only what's worked in the past.
opher goodwin Added Feb 12, 2018 - 8:46am
Truth and reality are personal, aren't they? We do not even know what another person's reality is. People hold diametrically opposing views to be true.
I believe the only way forward is to discuss our truth with others and arrive at common ground.
Leroy Added Feb 12, 2018 - 8:53am
I disagree with you, Opher.  The truth--reality--is non-negotiable.  There are absolute truths, although we may have different perceptions of it.  We must discard the invalid perceptions to move forward
Doug Plumb Added Feb 12, 2018 - 8:53am
Truth is 1+1=2, a straight line is the shortest distance between two points, everybody dies, and Kant's categorical Imperative or the commandment of the NT. There is lots of truth from which to base laws.
opher goodwin Added Feb 12, 2018 - 6:13pm
Leroy - what are these absolute truths then? The whole universe could be an illusion. There is a theory that we're simulacrums in an alien game. There is a theory that we are holograms of what is on the event horizon. We could be dreaming and making it up. What are these truths?
opher goodwin Added Feb 12, 2018 - 6:19pm
Doug - 1+1 can equal 3 or 0. There is no such thing as a straight line; all lines are curved as space is curved. I haven't died. The commandments of the NT were just a bunch of archaic rules that have been knocking around for centuries before being incorporated into the NT. Kant's supreme theory of moral imperative is just an idea and not a truth. Quantum theory completely undermines your logic and it works.
Free Ear Candy Added Feb 12, 2018 - 7:36pm
I’m thankful that you found interest in this subject matter and applied some reasoning to our shared circumstances. It is unifying, and whatever the outcome is from all of this, the reward is already in hand. I am glad to have made contact with people who have no inhibitions that disallow them go beyond the face value or the traditional ideas of what is examined and discussed. As my article strongly suggests, we all see things very differently, and thus we will naturally have our own well thought out interpretations accompanied by strong and well founded arguments. For me, I’m not interested in defeating the oppositions views and fact patterns. Rather, the contest is between the questions and the answers, and frankly, I don’t know which of the 2 I like the most. Nevertheless, in terms of absolute truth the question and the answer are one in the same.
 
@Leroy: Great comment. The first thing that jumped out at me was this short statement.
 
“In the natural world, the biggest, badest animal controls the turf. Violence is the natural order of things.”
 
It does seem that might makes right in the natural world view, but strength is measured in many ways. All things considered, I am under the impression that bacteria is at the top of the food chain. Not the biggest is appearance, but certainly resilient and quick to adapt to change. Bacteria doesn’t have longevity in terms of the life span of a single organism. Nevertheless, bacteria will likely be the last life form on earth as time advances and will have the honor of having the last meal. So the potential bacteria lacks at one end of the time spectrum it gains at the other. If in the natural world it is a contest between the survival of the weak and strong, then the last one standing gets the trophy, and bacteria seems to hold the most promising ability to outlast any other life form.
 
The subject of control is also another very interesting topic that fascinates me. Control is very much a part of the topic of external and internal governance. In my thought experiments I set out to define all the things I control about myself. Many of the vital operations my body needs to do is seemingly involuntary. I have no control over it, and perhaps if I did I could live forever. Sometimes thoughts just pop into my head for no reason. I can’t explain it, but I don’t see any measure of control when it happens.
 
On the other hand, I seemingly can create things that would not otherwise exist. Skyscrapers and the like are monuments to human free will. Can natural law explain art? I cannot make the connection between natural law and such expressions. So as you see I find very strong arguments on both ends. The only way I can reconcile the 2 is to assert the obvious fact all these things are 1 in the same. I feel as though I have willpower because the reality/natural laws I am made out of has willpower, I being one of many expression of said will power. Does that make sense?

With regards to violence being the natural order of things. My immediate reaction to the proposition is the dichotomy. Violence vs. Benevolence. There are good arguments for both ends, but in the end I am faced with having to consider if the 2 are also a subjective constructs and not quite the objective reality I‘m after.
 
In observation of the whole, all life seemingly feeds on itself. The closest I can come to a life form that doesn’t feed on another life form is plant life, but even plant life cannot exist without bacteria, as I understand biology. Even when given the logical concession that all life emerged from the necessary raw materials available in the environment, I would have to challenge how the 2 are really different from each other? Life exists in a environment, but an environment also exists in life.So it seems to be a frame of reference conundrum to me, and I find myself in a rabbit hole with an egg inside of an egg-ad infinity.
 
Nevertheless, things that are equal to each other are equal to the same thing. In which case the idea of violence and benevolence takes a new twist, and a morbid but interesting analogy emerges. If I am the only thing there is to eat, and I must eat to maintain the organism/environment of my being operating, then is eating my hand an act of violence or benevolence?
 
If I run this scenario further I will eventually lose the battle of maintaining the organism/environment of my being, and become incorporated into the greater organism/environment of my being. The mental constructs and egocentricity of my being is scattered in the uncertainty of change and entropy. However, the truth within me still remains unchanged as a non locality outside of space/time.
 
 
So what/where is the meaning in life? Is life merely the measured difference between organic and inorganic compoun
Leroy Added Feb 12, 2018 - 9:47pm
"Leroy - what are these absolute truths then? The whole universe could be an illusion. There is a theory that we're simulacrums in an alien game. There is a theory that we are holograms of what is on the event horizon. We could be dreaming and making it up. What are these truths?"
 
Doug explained a couple of truths to you.  The universe could be an illusion.  I had similar thoughts when I was five or six.  I wondered if we could be someone's or something's dream and when they/it awoke, we would cease to be.   Whatever the case, the world is reality for those in it.  There are some things that are unknowable.   If we awake the beast, we disappear.  If we are a simulation, then we disappear once we are bleach-bit'ed.  If there is a god that set the universe in motion, then we have to explain where God comes from.  If there is no god, we have to explain where matter comes from.  We can ponder, but we will never know.
Free Ear Candy Added Feb 12, 2018 - 10:50pm
Leroy, is there a word limit when I respond? It appears that half of my response to you here is missing. I'll re-post where is it left off.
 
So what/where is the meaning in life? Is life merely the measured difference between organic and inorganic compounds, or is life simultaneously both environments operating as one organism? I find the question of consciousness mute, as it is also just an environment within an environment. My foot does not think or contemplate which direction it will step, but my foot is part of the whole eco system of my being. So there are parts of me that think and exhibit consciousness and parts that do not. There are parts that are organic and parts that are inorganic. Nevertheless, all parts constitute what organizes the object I call me, and what form the interdependence of all these parts take are conditional as opposed to unconditional.
 
If I discard all of the above and hold on to the idea that the truth is unconditional and the source of all meaning, I can then assert that life is truth, and that truth suffers no entropy or death. The truth is self sustaining and it has no interdependency. Even the state of nothingness requires the validity that only truth can bring to the table. From the frame of reference of absolute truth, the concept of existence and non existence is illogical. Truth only deals in the certainly of each. One day I exist and the next day I don’t. Before I was born I did not exist circumstantially organized. All of these circumstances have or will experience truth just the same.
 
Leroy, you proposed the following observation…
 
“A deed recognized by all leads to peace, not violence.”
 
Today we see that under the concept of claims that 8 people have control of more wealth and resources than the bottom 50-60%. Let’s suppose this trend continues without any violence and everyone plays the monopoly game to the very end. In the days of old we used sticks and stones to settle disputed claims. Today the stakes are higher. So if I were to weigh rarity of violence due to respected claims, as opposed to the size of the occasional escalation that will occasionally erupt, I come to a different conclusion-not necessarily the right conclusion.
 
Always vigilant of the next confrontation, our technology has placed us at the precipice of extinction. But this would not at all suggest these technologies would not arise if claims where never excepted as valid. If we are in a limited resource environment, then justice would demand everything be shared equally. However, in a limited resource environment waste is an unacceptable practice. Not everyone needs or uses the same resource in the same quantity. Some people don’t like the eat meat and others do. So the calculus of how justice would be served with regards to shared resources is blurry. But in a limited resource environment there are 2 essential problems one will be confronted with. Waste and shortage.
 
 
Free Ear Candy Added Feb 12, 2018 - 10:55pm
@Doug Plumb

“you say that only absolute truth can be found in the abstract.”
 
First Doug, thank you for your comment and offering your proposals and views. What I mean to say with regards to “abstract truth”, is that the part of all we experience and call the truth is like a faceless non dimensional ghost. You feel and experience the virtues of the unchangeable certainty that define the truth, but everything around you that comes via the sensory mind does not correspond. The interpretation of what I observe is in contradiction with what I believe are the virtues and behavior of truth. Certainty is an absolute real experience. I cannot argue that all things are uncertain without putting my argument in jeopardy of its own conviction. Its self defeating argument to assert all things are uncertain. So I am naturally compelled to avoid such an argument because of my distaste for vanity.
 
“Your ideas sound Kantian”.
 
The truth is I have read very little of any of the philosophers works in any great depth. A little here and a little there. I take in what comes my way and I hold it to the side. Some things correspond to my most valued observations and some do not. But, I do enjoy the process of peeling back the onion and listening to others do the same.
 
“united Plato and Aristotle in a sense.”
 
I can’t speak of Kant’s works off the top off my head, but if the above is in fact the case, then I see such unity as a move in the direction of the truth, or at least a settlement of ideas, which has a mutual conformation benefit - a quorum consensus.
 
“I think we have the knowledge to create a peaceful and better world, but in this we are threatened by the tragedy of perfection.”
 
I read an article a while back that really blew me away with its argument. The argument was if every answer leads to 2 new questions, then our ignorance expands exponentially faster than our knowledge. Or perhaps better phrased, our knowledge of our ignorance expands faster than our enlightenment. We didn’t know what we didn’t know until we were born. Would that be the correct fact pattern?
 
Perfect is truth. Nothing can be added or taken from truth without destroying it. Lets hope the truth is not a tragedy.

opher goodwin
Free Ear Candy Added Feb 12, 2018 - 10:56pm
@opher goodwin
 
Thanks so much for chiming in and offering your thoughts.
“Truth and reality are personal, aren't they?”
 
I think the truth and reality would continue without humans. Evidence seems to suggests things have been around long before humans asked the first question looking for a truthful answer.
 
The truth you are referring to is relative truth. Albert Einstein wrote extensively about it, and did a marvelous job of describing what I think is the best subjective interpretation od reality going. I think quantum mechanics will speak more about the objective truth and its superposition qualities. It is clear the 2 have some irresolvable conflicts that are disallowing the two to fall under one complete theory. Nevertheless, like every paradox both are proving consistent while arguing against the other. Consistency is a virtue of truth, but the contradiction is a sure sign the wheat has not been completely separated from the shaft. What I believe is going to be the break through is when science starts to address the science of the mind and consciousness. We tend to think we are not part of the experiment, but I think quantum mechanics is going to challenge that way of thinking. When I look at the light it is a particle in space and time with a location. When I don’t look it is a wave of potential that is everywhere at the same time, thus rendering it as a non locality or superposition. All of these states are how one would describe the truth/reality/God. All three being everywhere and nowhere simultaneously.
 
opher goodwin Added Feb 13, 2018 - 5:09am
We live in a universe where nothing is ever what it seems. Things can exist in two places at the same time, particles can arrive before they are left, photons behave differently when be observed, black holes and quasars have totally different physical properties, the singularity contained all time, space and matter yet had different laws to those of this universe, there may be an infinite number of universes each with different laws, all we see is partial, the unknown is greater than the known, science is weirder than science fiction, psychology might be all there is.
Nothing is absolute - not even temperature.
Free Ear Candy Added Feb 13, 2018 - 7:20am
opher goodwin
 
"Nothing is absolute"
 
I respectfully point out that such a statement defeats itself. If there isn't anything absolute, then the statement above is not absolute.
 
Now if one said "nothing is absolute except this statement", then there you go. However, it leaves one with nothing absolute to prove your statement is true because everything else is less than absolutely certain. Thus, the only way such a statement would be accepted is by concession and not proof. It kinda dangles out there on its own.
 
"Every" argument is arguing that something is absolutely certain and the argument will likely have a pattern of "certain" facts to support the argument. Even if I am arguing for uncertainty the statement needs to be certain.  Is the uncertainty principle "certain" or does it work sometimes and sometimes it doesn't work at all? And if it does work at all is that certain, and so on, and so on....
 
If I argue for the lie, then everything I say is a lie. That is a liars paradox.
 
I think Plancks constant qualifies as an absolute.
Nevertheless, I think all the relativity is mind reality. The relationship of mind reality and objective reality is like the relationship between irrational numbers and a whole number.
 
Reality is not the universe. Reality is the certainty that the proposed universe/universes is/are "ABSOLUTELY" true/certain/real/valid/unchangeable/unconditional.
 
Leroy Added Feb 13, 2018 - 7:45am
"Leroy, is there a word limit when I respond? It appears that half of my response to you here is missing. I'll re-post where is it left off."
 
Yes, there is a word or character limit to comments.  To the best of my knowledge, it doesn't apply to the original article.  Other than that rule and the rules for commenting on other articles, there are no rules.
opher goodwin Added Feb 13, 2018 - 7:55am
LOL Free - no - nothing may be the only thing that is absolute.
Doug Plumb Added Feb 13, 2018 - 8:13am
re "I think Plancks constant qualifies as an absolute." But it isn't Plancks constant changes!. Only absolute truths come from rationalism, not empiricism.
Doug Plumb Added Feb 13, 2018 - 8:15am
Communists cannot see rationalism. They only see empiricism, so that's why the controllers want to kill rationalism (reason).
Leroy Added Feb 13, 2018 - 9:35am
Free Ear Candy, thank you for your original and updated article and your detailed comments.  I also thank you for your purity of thoughts.  When one is too well studied in philosophy, they become bound by that philosophy and can only think in terms of what this or that philosopher thought on the matter.  You are truly an original thinker and that is, indeed, free ear candy.
 
I largely agree with your thoughts but come to a different conclusion.
 
There is the 80%-20% "rule" that occurs throughout nature.  It is not surprising to me that the majority of the wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few.  It is also not surprising that the few create a majority of the innovations and wealth.  It has always been that way.  I am not saying that it is right.
 
Technology is the great equalizer.  More and more power is in the hand of individuals.  Maybe is becomes MAD between individuals.  Ultimately, it may be our undoing.  One NEMP over the US and we are all fighting over scraps.
opher goodwin Added Feb 13, 2018 - 11:15am
Doug - are you suggesting I'm a communist or is that a term you apply to anyone who isn't a fascist?
As a scientist and an educator I taught my students that there were no such things as facts. Everything that is known and understood is based on observation, experiment and theory. We don't get anywhere by believing things.
Dave Volek Added Feb 13, 2018 - 12:50pm
This discussion reminds of a short story from Robert Heinlein.
 
The protagonist is a man beset by delusions that the world is all a stage and he is being manipulated. His estranged wife, psychiastrist, best friend, etc. are trying to get him to come to his senses.
 
At the end of the story, the protagonist says: "The hell with you all. I leaving Chicago and heading for New York".
 
In the last few paragraphs, the antagonists converse:
 
 
"Damn, we'll have to set up New York City again."
"Where do we put the Chicago set?"
"Does anyone remember where we put the set for the train? He has to believe he is on a train."
 
Maybe that is indeed our truth!
opher goodwin Added Feb 13, 2018 - 2:13pm
Dave - I wrote a book like that long ago. My guy turns out to have been in an alien porn sitcom.
Free Ear Candy Added Feb 13, 2018 - 4:48pm
opher goodwin
Leroy
 
At the very min.- the “very statement” one uses to make any argument must be absolutely certain. That is why the absolute truth is a first and indispensable necessity. I cannot ground a fact on a foundation of uncertainty. However, I can ground a universe of uncertainty on one absolute certainty. Give me one certainty and I can create unlimited infinities on top of it. There may be an infinite amount of universes, but only if they are ABSOLUTELY TRUE. There is only 1 reality and it holds the superposition.
 
The singularity.
There being only one absolute truth would follow the following logic. If there is only 1 of something, then that something is “unique” a singularity. It would also be considered “perfect”, because that which is absolute cannot be distilled or purified further-a singularity.
 
That which is in a superposition is timeless. That which is timeless has no beginning or end, which also means it does not have a cause, which also means it is not an effect of a previous cause. Thus there is no infinite regression argument to ask what created the Truth/Reality/God. If superposition is a factual state, free of time and space, then the first cause has been discovered. Before the first moment there was no time and space. Just the superposition of absolute certainty. What existed before the big bang may in fact amount to nothingness, but said nothingness did not lack reality/certainty/validity/truth/etc. Otherwise, said state of nothingness is not true.
 
Logic would also suggest that if the subject in question is a singularity in superposition, being a timeless non locality with no beginning or end, being perfect in all ways and indivisible, Being unique and impossible to be replicated, then the comparative would be the antithesis of truth. The universe serves as the antithetical comparative. The universe expresses all of the opposite virtues of truth. The universe appears fractured into relative pluralities, all swimming in a soup of space/time uncertainty. The complete opposite of the truth.
opher goodwin Added Feb 13, 2018 - 6:39pm
Me thinks you play semantics. One reality? There may be as many realities as there are conscious sentient beings to see them. Absolute truth - there is no such thing.
Our universe started as a singularity. That does not preclude the possibility that it was one of many.
Have one of something does not presuppose perfection does it?
We cannot suppose a timelessness or a beginning to time, or an end. Laws in a singularity do not work that way.
All is speculation. Nothing is certain. All possibility exists.
Free Ear Candy Added Feb 13, 2018 - 7:33pm
opher goodwin
 
"Me thinks you play semantics........Absolute truth - there is no such thing."
 
If there is no "absolute" truth, then your statement is not 100% true. Moreover, if your statement isn't 100% true, then logic would follow there is a % of something else involved. What might that remaining % be?
Free Ear Candy Added Feb 13, 2018 - 8:00pm
opher goodwin
 
"We cannot suppose a timelessness or a beginning to time"
 
The whole of the theory of relativity hangs on the constant refereed to as the speed of light. According to A.E. theory, as one approaches the speed of light time slows down. Thus light, or anything else that has no mass, experiences no time or space-according to theory and applied science. 
 
"Definition of time dilation. : a slowing of time in accordance with the theory of relativity that occurs in a system in motion relative to an outside observer and that becomes apparent especially as the speed of the system approaches that of light — called also time dilatation."
 
So, according to this theory, which seems to have world wide support and proven track record, timelessness is a absolute logical necessity for the above calculus to work in the practical world. 
 
 

Recent Articles by Writers Free Ear Candy follows.