Paradox of Absolute truth

Benj96

Let's suppose that an absolute universal truth exists.

1). Let's also suppose that this truth is linked to "absolute knowledge" in "Knowing the truth". Knowing what is true = true knowledge.

2). Let's also suppose that this truth is linked to "absolute moral" for 2 reasons: A. Because speaking/telling the truth = true/ absolute honesty and B. Because imparting "true knowledge" by speaking the truth, is an act of empowerment of others. It could be seen as an act of Love for the greater good. Knowledge is power and power is the ability to assume control. Providing correct understandings of nature (educating) confers understanding and thus the ability to take control.
Therefore empowering others to be more knowledgeable and more moral is a moral act in itself.

Conclusion: Any individual in possession or "revelation" of such a truth has 2 options: conceal it/keep it to oneself. In which case one cannot tell the truth. And so becomes a liar by definition.

This is basis for powerful and dangerous propaganda - from the word "to propagate" - as in to propagate delusions, deceptions and misinformation. To be deceitful. This is therefore wholly immoral as it disempowers others/misleads them and reduces their ability to be moral or take control. It is manipulative.
So to know the truth and not speak it is the archetype of the "villain", "antagonist" or "evil doer".

There is a second option however: in order to affirm oneself as objectively moral (knowledgeable and ethical) - one must be compelled to speak the truth. This must become their life dedication/pursuit.
This is the basis for great teachers, sages, gurus, prophets, truth-speakers, or "outstanding citizens".

But a dilemma arises here. A paradox.

If not having the universal truth is a state of delusion/ignorance and inability to be fully moral vs. Having the truth and wishing to speak it - a state of objective morality, then a truth-speaker is faced with everyone of the following:

1). The Arrogant (those that believe they know the truth when they are in fact deluded/misinformed).

2). The Ignorant (those in pure disbelief, those that blatently refuse to listen or simply don't know who to believe) and

3). The truly immoral (those that also know the truth, and thus can identify the truth-teller and their legitimacy to the claim) but having opted themselves to withold the same truth from others and thus are directly threatened by them.
Because if others are to be empowered by knowledge and morality (revelation) , it would reveal the sinister for who they truly are - an actively immoral truth denier- selfish, manipulative, deceitful/a liar.

So, in conclusion, the objectively moral teacher acknowledges through their actions that they are essentially pitting themselves against/placing themselves in direct contempt from everyone who is envious, skeptical, deluded or outright malicious.

Such a person is thus in a position of being persecuted in an act of defiance against deceit, out of innate love for others and the desire to empower them against deception/propaganda and malintent through revelation.

How does one prove their validity as the claimant to objective morality in this dilemma? When everyone is prepared to project delusion, judgement, intolerance, envy and hatred onto them despite their noble attempt?

The answer is a 3 step process:

1). Speak the truth, if it is indeed as powerful as it ought to be - because of its logical and revelatory nature, the truth speaker ought to gain some attention and fandom, rising from obscurity to the height of politics and media coverage.

2). Self - clarification through rigorous debate/interview or interrogation. Identify ones opponents by outlining the truth and allowing people to exercise their free will, to choose a side and polarise society in the infamous debate.

3). Martyrdom. With death standing in an inherently immoral act by the truth teller and with their most malevolent opponents stopping at absolutely nothing to re-conceal the truth for their own selfish gain and resumption of control/manipulation of the masses, the truth teller must simply wait for their inevitably murder/assassination as the final proof of which side should have been believed all along.

SpaceDweller

Conclusion: Any individual in possession or "revelation" of such a truth has 2 options: conceal it/keep it to oneself. In which case one cannot tell the truth. And so becomes a liar by definition.

This is basis for powerful and dangerous propaganda - from the word "to propagate" - as in to propagate delusions, deceptions and misinformation. To be deceitful. This is therefore wholly immoral as it disempowers others/misleads them and reduces their ability to be moral or take control. It is manipulative.
So to know the truth and not speak it is the archetype of the "villain", "antagonist" or "evil doer". — Benj96

I don't agree with this and to support my disagreement I'm going to point to the amazing allegory of the cave by Plato:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

Scroll to "summary" section to read the allegory.

Thus if one who has some revelation and knows truth but does not speak about it such as institutions, it's very likely this is so because revealing the truth would not be understood (esoteric truth) or the public wouldn't even care to listen to it.

Benj96

↪SpaceDweller

I'm familiar with platos cave.

Prisoners in cave only see projection of actual reality, one goes outside, sees things as they are, goes back in to tell other but cannot adjust to the light, prisoners assume whatever happened was bad/harmful and refuse to go outside.

Thus if one who has some revelation and knows truth but does not speak about it such as institutions, it's very likely this is so because revealing the truth would not be understood (esoteric truth) or the public wouldn't even care to listen to it. — SpaceDweller

Why would a fundamental, profound or simple/basic truth be esoteric (specialised and inaccessible).
The whole point of truth and it's "acknowledgement" ie "knowledge of what's true" is that it very much is accesible by following basic logic and reasoning to their ends.

Truths make sense to people. Strings of lies do not because theyre "inconsistent" (false) ie not true and thus not sensible.

If a child can understand something, then they have knowledge of it, and so can access truth about it.

Thus if one who has some revelation and knows truth but does not speak about it such as institutions, it's very likely this is so because revealing the truth would not be understood ( — SpaceDweller

Secondly you speak in doubles first saying "one who has some revelation" and then "such as institutions" which is it? One person does not an institution make.

I think it's far more reasonable that an "institution" or hierarchy of power, withholds the truth from the top (manipulator/truth with-holder) downward not because the general public couldn't understand it but rather because they don't want the public to understand it as if they did, they wouldn't be in a position of power anymore would they? If they give their trump card - the truth - to everyone they equalise the playing field and it's more difficult to be self interested.

Just as if a master investor gave his secrets to his opponents he'd have no advantage in economy/the markets.

Also the publics lack of understanding of it is literally caused by whoever withholds it from them. It's in effect keeping the public distracted and uneducated (without knowledge of what's true). It's easier to deceive and manipulate someone if they are without much understanding of anything compared to you.

the public wouldn't even care to listen to it — SpaceDweller

If you asked the public would they like to know who is fooling them and misguiding them. Who is spreading propaganda and misinformation, do you genuinely think they wouldnt care at all? None of them?? Not a single one?

Imagine going up to someone and saying "so I have this big super important super powerful secret which let's me manipulate others. And I'm not telling you what that is."

You think people "wouldn't care".

That's a weak argument right there. An untruth SpaceDweller.

SpaceDweller

Why would a fundamental, profound or simple/basic truth be esoteric (specialised and inaccessible).
The whole point of truth and it's "acknowledgement" ie "knowledge of what's true" is that it very much is accesible by following basic logic and reasoning to their ends.

Truths make sense to people. Strings of lies do not because theyre "inconsistent" (false) ie not true and thus not sensible. — Benj96

I think because it is objective truth that truth is not known.
But I don't think truth makes (or would make) sense to people just because it's truth.

That's why I linked to the allegory of the cave, knowing the truth in this sense means going out of the cave but nobody is willing to do it (to know the truth):

Socrates concludes that the prisoners, if they were able, would therefore reach out and kill anyone who attempted to drag them out of the cave

Secondly you speak in doubles first saying "one who has some revelation" and then "such as institutions" which is it? One person does not an institution make. — Benj96

I would say it applies to both but more leaning toward institution, it depends on what is meant by 'truth' or how is it defined.
I think of truth as of universal truth which answers the existence of all things because this would answer many great philosophical questions.

I think it's far more reasonable that an "institution" or hierarchy of power, withholds the truth from the top (manipulator/truth with-holder) downward not because the general public couldn't understand it but rather because they don't want the public to understand it as if they did, they wouldn't be in a position of power anymore would they? — Benj96

What you're talking about is exactly "esoteric" truth, meaning not only that it would not be understood by cave men (it blinds them) but also unwillingness of those circles which know it to share, both applies.

Also the publics lack of understanding of it is literally caused by whoever withholds it from them. It's in effect keeping the public distracted and uneducated (without knowledge). It's easier to deceive and manipulate someone without much understanding of anything. — Benj96

Yes, agree.

If you asked the public would they like to know who is fooling them and misguiding them. Who is spreading prooganada and misinformation. Do you genuinely think they wouldnt care? — Benj96

The public would of course care but I don't think they would believe it.
We are again to the cave story, the public would "reach out and kill anyone who attempted to drag them out of the cave"

Imagine going up to someone and saying "so I have this big super important super powerful secret which let's me manipulate others. And I'm not telling you what that is."

You think people "wouldn't care". — Benj96

Well, Jesus also proclaimed truth and we all know people *did* care but didn't believe it.
Jews went out of the cave and killed him to not be dragged out of the cave.

I think for this discussion to make any sense you should define what is meant by truth, that is, what should this universal truth be about, what should that universal truth answer or reveal?

You said "Any individual in possession or "revelation" of such a truth", thus I assume by revelation you mean truth which answers great questions.

Also I assume there can be only one truth, otherwise it's not truth but just true statement related to something of insignificant value to the general public.

Benj96

I think because it is objective truth that truth is not known. — SpaceDweller

You're right. Partial or less significant sets of truth can be known. I am however talking about an overriding whole truth. Not partial features. The cat is purring. May be a truth. But it's not an "absolute" truth tied to fundamentals.

I think of truth as of universal truth which answers the existence of all things because this would answer many great philosophical questions. — SpaceDweller

Yes. This is what I mean by an "absolute truth". Part of it is known in daily live. Trivialities. But the OP suggests someone being "enlightened" to the whole thing through and through.

The public would of course care but I don't think they would believe it. — SpaceDweller

Well they can't opt to believe it disbelieve it until they hear it.

Jews went out of the cave and killed him to not be dragged out of the cave — SpaceDweller

Ironic isn't it.

I think for this discussion to make any sense you should define what is meant by truth, that is, what should this universal truth be about, what should that universal truth answer or reveal — SpaceDweller

It is outlined. For someone to tell the whole truth. They would invariably be chastised and persecuted for it. For the very reasons you outline:that some people are not ready/can't handle it. Some people don't want it. Some cannot tolerate it while continuing to justify their lifestyle.

You said "Any individual in possession or "revelation" of such a truth", thus I assume by revelation you mean truth which answers great questions. — SpaceDweller

Yes.

Also I assume there can be only one truth — SpaceDweller

Only one fundamental one. Because it's "essential" or "absolute". A truth that explains both origin, as well as nature, as well as consciousness, knowledge and morality.

SpaceDweller

↪Benj96

I don't know if you're aware but since 1990's there is a new field of study called "Western esotericism", only very few universities in the world exist, and only the one in Amsterdam offers PhD degree.

According to this field of study, there are three approaches on how this problem of universal truth could be approached:

1. Historical-critical approach,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism

There are two currents of thought in this approach, one is strictly "historical-critical" aka. "kill the God" approach, that is, remove God or anything spiritual and then deconstruct texts.
And another one, the “generalists,” who intend to study "esotericism" as a whole.

2. Perennial philosophy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy

Perennialist approach is either:
A) Universalists

consists in postulating the existence of a "universal esotericism" of which
it would be a matter of discovering, of explicating the “true” nature

That is, approach in which there is search for "esoteric truth"

B) Religionists (3rd approach)

consists in positing that, to validly study a religion, a tradition, a spiritual trend, and so on - and, consequently, "esotericism" - it is necessary to be a member of it oneself on pain of not
understanding very much about it

C) Both A and B in same time
Principally "Perennial philosophy"

Btw. I took above two quotes (A and B) from the book called "Western Esotericism" by Arthur Versluis.

What I'm trying to say here is this:
1. If truth is known only by small circle (ex. esoteric truth) then as we already concluded, this circle either A) keeps the truth to manipulate masses, ex. for their own gain, or
B) keeps the truth because it would not be understood or may be harmful for society

2. truth itself can be either of religious nature or historical nature where both may be considered with the aim for either one to outweight the other with the support of outweighted one.

3. It clearly shows that truth-saying has evolved to the level of scholarship and there are divided opinions non-the less, probably influenced by real "truth-keepers" which is well known among scholars except it's unknown who keeps the truth and why.

How does one prove their validity as the claimant to objective morality in this dilemma? When everyone is prepared to project delusion, judgement, intolerance, envy and hatred onto them despite their noble attempt?

The answer is a 3 step process: ... — Benj96

I think none of the 3 propositions are desired for "truth-speaker", at least not for wise one, first two would simply fail because mass media is biased and controlled by governments or lobbies or by truth-keepers, very likely resulting in denigration of a truth-speaker which was the case with many truth-speakers.
The 3rd one is unwise because with one's own death one cannot be sure what will happen later nor can a dead person influence the world once it's dead.
There are countless martyrs in the name of truth and none succeeded to answer great questions.

Thus a wise one knows the result of truth-saying is equal to destruction of it's life or carrier.

1). Speak the truth, if it is indeed as powerful as it ought to be - because of its logical and revelatory nature, the truth speaker ought to gain some attention and fandom, rising from obscurity to the height of politics and media coverage. — Benj96

This is interesting however, if it is indeed as powerful as it ought to be - because of its logical and revelatory nature then such truth if it ever was told is a lie because we still do not know the answers to great questions, at least not empirical ones.
Therefore I think truth is either esoteric, a lie or it doesn't exist.

I would rule out "doesn't exist" however because we and the world around us obviously does exist, so I'm in favor of, it's either esoteric or an elaborate lie.

I agree with you though that not telling the truth is evil for society if such truth exists, however also without knowing the actual truth we can only speculate about reasons for keeping it secret.
Maybe speculating about what truth is could help figure out reasons for keeping it secret.

ssu

Conclusion: Any individual in possession or "revelation" of such a truth has 2 options: conceal it/keep it to oneself. In which case one cannot tell the truth. And so becomes a liar by definition. — Benj96

How? Not saying anything doesn't make you a liar. Knowing something and telling it to others is two separate things.

Besides, any person or entity that is part of the universe and interacts with the universe cannot know objectively all truths. The reason is that when this entity says has an effect on the issue at hand, it cannot be objective. The entity simply is subjective.

It's simply the similar problem in physics when the measurement of something affects what is measured.

Just think about for a moment:

Let's assume we have this all knowing entity and it tries to answer everything. Obviously it can answer a lot of things correctly and make extremely good predictions. And many people will then believe it. Yet the problem arises when people, like leaders and politicians, ask it what to do and want to base their actions on it's answer. What is then the objective truth? That namely politicians will follow what the entity will say. But that's circular reasoning, or basically the entity itself is subjective here and cannot give an objective answer. I'm sure that this also bring a moral dilemma if you add morality into the issue.

Hence the answer actually is that absolute universal truths do exist, but we cannot know all absolute universal truths because we are part of the universe. Our subjectivity limits our objectivity.

Benj96

How? Not saying anything doesn't make you a liar — ssu

Sure, it doesn't make you a liar. But if it is a fundamental truth, a profound permeating principle, and you choose to ignore it, then you ignore the truth and remain "unprincipled" or "less principled".

And the definition for that is "ignorance". Ignoring what is ultimately true. You may not be a liar but you disempower yourself by not accepting nor propagating something of profound importance.

Instead you simply let others do your bidding. Many of which may not have the best intentions in those biddings. They may be bidding for convenient lies that oppress others whilst being self interested for them.

It's deferring the opportunity to take responsibility. Likened to saying "climate change is not my responsibility because I don't understand it, and/or others contribute more. This doesn't change the fact that if every held an attitude of inaction and deferral of responsibility, then we end up stagnating in a pool of aimless finger pointing, zero accountability and zero proaction.

Benj96

Besides, any person or entity that is part of the universe and interacts with the universe cannot know objectively all truths — ssu

Of course they cant know all truths at all times. Because we don't exist everywhere, all at once. We are not eternal witnesses. But some truths govern others. There is a heriarchy of truths. A hierarchy with fundamentals at the top and the present moment at the base. The present being changeable, the fundamentals not being so subject to change if at all.

One does not require to know every movement of every particle to know the laws and rules that govern such processes. It is a process of condensation of knowledge into a universally applicable framework.

Benj96

all absolute universal truths — ssu

If there is plurality, then they're not absolute. An absolute truth is singular. Otherwise it's not absolute any more than a cat purred today is one truth and someone coughed is another truth. Neither are absolute because they don't demonstrate understanding of the entire system as a whole throughout time. Theyre true sure. But partial truths because they're restricted to a moment in time, they're only true in a moment. Temporally verifiable. They're not true at "all moments".

It's not like a cat is always purring for eternity or there exists an endless cough. As I said, some truths are based on previous ones in a heriarchy of relationships.

There is one law which rules them all. The origin, singular and ruling law from which everything else emerges.

Benj96

nor can a dead person influence the world once it's dead. — SpaceDweller

I don't believe that is true.
Many people leave an posthumously influential legacy. If they didn't, revolutionists, great thinkers, or superb leaders influence would instantly decay/disappear at the moment of their death.

Except they don't. Teachings often outlive the teacher.

Benj96

There are countless martyrs in the name of truth and none succeeded to answer great questions. — SpaceDweller

We do not know that. Because recital or "memory" of a martyrs teachings are slowly and inevitably corrupted by the personal bias of recountants, human error and the evolution of language and it's context in an ever changing world. Not to mention those where it is in their own interest to confuse and misdirect interpretations so as to conceal "threatening" truths that conflict with their personal agenda.

The longer ago one teaches a truth, the more obscure it becomes. The less accesible. Because understandings dissolve away into lack of context, poor translation and misinterpretation.

History is retrospective. That is to say their is current prejudices and influences at play that degrade the true nature of what a historical figure said. There are dozens and then hundreds and then thousands of citations as to what they actually taught. And some are wrong. Thus the only way to truly know what they said is to have lived when they did and met them first hand.

Benj96

Therefore I think truth is either esoteric, a lie or it doesn't exist. — SpaceDweller

Truth cannot be a lie. Otherwise the foundations of our court/judiciary system is completely faulty and evidence and justice are total nonsense. Truth is by definition the opposite to falsehood. So how they could be the same is beyond me.

Truth cannot be esoteric, because it spans the range from basic/simple to complex.

Truth cannot not exist, otherwise all of science is debased. Nothing can be real. There would be zero consistency (truths) permeating the changeable backdrop of nature. Every law, principle, constant and rule would be false and we could never trust the technology, medicine or education based on them.

Therefore truth exists. And as a spectrum of all true things, some are more longstanding, more consistent, more fundamental, than others.
I just drank some water is true.
Civilisation has been around for millenia is true.
Animals exists for millions of years is true.
The planet condensed via gravity is true.
The elements of earth were created by nuclear reaction in stars is true.

The difference is that some truths are instantaneous/brief and rely on larger truths. And on the other hand one massive truth, one fundamental "All-preceding" truth is eternal. A singularity that governs all truths for however long they last because it is the source of time itself.

So fundamental truth exists.

SpaceDweller

Truth cannot be a lie. Otherwise the foundations of our court/judiciary system is completely faulty and evidence and justice are total nonsense. — Benj96

Truth cannot be esoteric, because it spans the range from basic/simple to complex. — Benj96

Truth cannot not exist, otherwise all of science is debased. — Benj96

Therefore truth exists. And as a spectrum of all true things, some are more longstanding, more consistent, more fundamental, than others.
I just drank some water is true.
Civilisation has been around for millenia is true.
Animals exists for millions of years is true.
The planet condensed via gravity is true... — Benj96

We need to distinguish true statements or logical truths from universal truth.
There any many logical truths while universal truth is only one.

Existence of logical truths does not imply existence of universal truth, universal truth may as well consist of multiple or a series of logical truths, however the opposite is false, such that any of the logical truths is universal truth because no such logical truth is known.

What you're saying is that universal truth is necessarily logical truth even though unknown, but this is wrong assumption for reason above.

universal truth might as well be illogical or paradoxical.

180 Proof

↪Benj96

The closest thing to "absolute truth" is that such "knowledge" is either ineffable or unknowable. As finite, relative beings, we're no more capable of grasping the infinite and the absolute as a drinking cup can contain the Atlantic Ocean. "IMO, absolute truth"-tellers e.g. gurus, sages, prophets ... are immoral insofar as they preach 'illusions of "absolute knowledge"' – ignorance of ignorance – to their naive and gullible followers. Thus, philosophers (e.g. Socratics, Pyrrhonians) are the original cult deprogrammers.

:fire:

Tom Storm

↪Benj96

Sounds like you come at truth from a more spiritual or religious path - hence the role of transcendence in your formulation.

Metanarratives like God or Reality or Ultimate Truth seem to be interchangeable fantasies.

Truth is an abstraction. Better to talk about specific things and determine if they are the case or not. Truth is not a property that looks the same wherever it is found. Truth is established in different ways for different matters. Eg - mathematical truth, geographic, historical, legal, philosophical, etc.

We can’t dismiss truth out of hand since we are able to use maps to get to places and science to solve problems. We know what happens if we take arsenic, or if we use bad maths to build bridges. These things are true. But I don't see how we can magnify truth into a god surrogate, as the ultimate explanation for everything. I think humans have a craving for totalizing narratives because it is comforting. And because we can see small, quotidian truths at work in direct empirical terms, we believe we can magnify this into any number of overarching truth fables, from alchemy to Scientology.

"IMO, Absolute truth"-tellers e.g. gurus, sages, prophets ... are immoral insofar as they preach 'illusions of "absolute knowledge"' – ignorance – to their naive and gullible followers. Thus, philosophers (e.g. Socratics, Pyrrhonians) are the original cult deprogrammers. :fire: — 180 Proof

Nice.

wonderer1

Thus, philosophers (e.g. Socratics, Pyrrhonians) are the original cult deprogrammers. :fire: — 180 Proof

:up: :lol:

ssu

Of course they cant know all truths at all times. — Benj96

If we cant know all truths at all times, isn't that then a limitation to absolute knowledge?

One does not require to know every movement of every particle to know the laws and rules that govern such processes. — Benj96

And what does the second law of thermodynamics tell us? Or quantum physics of the idea of Newtonian clockwork universe?

Yet for certain questions and their truthful answers, there are limitations. Even if we understand these limitations, they show simply not all truths are then knowable. We don't know.

And this is far more simple and fundamental limitation. When any entity interacts with the world around it, there are then issues that it cannot know. It cannot make an objective description.

Or then, try to write an answer that you will never write. If the correct truthful answer is "an answer you will never write", how will you give that truthful answer? It's as simple as that.

Benj96

Existence of logical truths does not imply existence of universal truth, universal truth may as well consist of multiple or a series of logical truths, however the opposite is false, such that any of the logical truths is universal truth because no such logical truth is known.

What you're saying is that universal truth is necessarily logical truth even though unknown, but this is wrong assumption for reason above. — SpaceDweller

Well if we assume a universal truth exists then it somehow would have to give rise to both logic and irrationality as well as paradox. Because if it is the true nature of how the universe began and developed as well as the basis for all possibilities within the universe, then anything that occurs is born of it.

As for irrationality, paradox and contradiction - these could be the products of misunderstanding and personal bias that comes with being conscious. Based on premises and assumptions.

For example the grandfather paradox disappears if we replace the assumption that linear time exists as any concrete external thing, with the idea that time doesn't exist outside of conscious perception. That time is based on the capacity to have memories and the ability to compare memorised data with the ever changing present moment and acknowledge the discrepancy between them.

In that case the statement "if you could go back in time and kill your grandfather" would be absurd and answered with "you cannot go back in time because it doesn't exist outside of conscious awareness". The logic only exists in the mind. Which could mean it is truly irrational to apply to the actual system.

Many such paradoxes are resolved or displaced elsewhere when we chance the assumptions in their construction.

My point being, a logical and fundamental truth can exist but because we don't know it (don't have the correct assumptions and premises at hand), we practice irrational/illogical assumptions instead. Until we identify and remove them (alter our paradigm of knowledge/undertanding).

Benj96

If we cant know all truths at all times, isn't that then a limitation to absolute knowledge? — ssu

No. Because again, we are referring here to temporal truths. Truths that rely on time to be true, cannot be known from within the passage of time, at all times. Because they aren't true at all times. Things within time "change"..

A truth that give rise to time and entropy etc on the other hand ie one that is more fundamental to conscious time perception and the evolution of universal phenomena from an origin, can be known as more constant.

Even if we understand these limitations — ssu

If we truly understood limitations there wouldn't be any. The limitation itself is our lack of understanding of the cohesion and relationships of the whole. If everything is connected by information, matter, time, space and energy, then where exactly is the limit in such connection? The limit =where our knowledge/certainty stops and our confusion, irrationality and paradoxes begin.

Then we must readdress our assumptions because clearly we went wrong somewhere due to the limitations we stand at, and we often work around the limitations to approach something more sensible and concrete. That's advancement of knowledge.

The advancement is reconciliation of everything with everything else in a logical and predictable manner.
Relativity completely changed our views on spacetime. Cooernicus completely revolutionised our understanding of a heliocentric solar system. Before this we had limitations based on false assumptions. They reconciled them and so allowed us access to more knowledge and took us closer to a theory of everything or a fundamental truth.

Benj96

When any entity interacts with the world around it, there are then issues that it cannot know. It cannot make an objective description. — ssu

When an entity interacts with the world around it, this entity is an finite and distinct object within the whole system. For which all interactions everywhere are unavailable. So yes at most it can make a subjective description about what it can perceive.
When an entity is the whole system, it cannot interact with anything "around it" because it is the sum of all interactions. And it "is" the objective description we seek. It is nature itself.

So we see here that being spatiotemporally restricted, one is limited to perceptions of the immediate surroundings. However the mind has no such limits to conceptualisation of general truths that apply to all things based on standardising those that we have immediately available.

We know that a star 100s of lightyears away experiences gravity. We also know what temperature it is because of the frequency of light it emits. We don't know this because we travelled there. We know this because of the brains capacity to understand the whole from a focal point (objective existence).

My point was we can and are approaching fundamental truth by observing it's uniform unchanging behaviour in the system around us.

Benj96

The closest thing to "absolute truth" is that such "knowledge" is either ineffable or unknowable — 180 Proof

If that is the case how to we know the mass of the sun, the strength of gravity or the speed of light? If universal constants, laws and things that are closer to fundamental (stable or unchanging) truth are ineffable or unknowable how do we understand basic things about the entire universe that we have never actually visited or personally experienced.

My point is that because the fundamental nature of reality exists at all points in reality, it is accesible from all points in reality. And we have a mind that's very good at differentiating changeable things from unchangeable things. The changeable things are less true than the unchangeable when we consider the truth about nature being it's foundation. A stable and singular law or premise that underlies all possibilities "above it" /extending outward from it as they emerge.

Absolute truth"-tellers e.g. gurus, sages, prophets ... are immoral insofar as they preach 'illusions of "absolute knowledge"' – ignorance – to their naive and gullible followers. Thus, philosophers (e.g. Socratics, Pyrrhonians) are the original cult deprogrammers. :fire: — 180 Proof

Who's to say these truth tellers weren't just philosophers? Contemplators - the terms sage or guru or prophet given posthumously.
What is ignorant or immoral about telling others what you believe to be useful or sensible. And offering them the choice to take credence or ignore. I doubt any of them forced their views on anyone. And yet they still became quite important historical figures. Why is that?

wonderer1

My point was we can and are approaching fundamental truth by observing it's uniform unchanging behaviour in the system around us. — Benj96

This seems to assume the impossibility of a multiverse, containing multiple universes with different physics. Is that so? And if so, why think that a well justified assumption?

Benj96

Truth is an abstraction. — Tom Storm

An abstraction that explains the concrete nature of how things work in all fields of study. Sure. It is a concept I'll agree, but one that reflects how reality operates.

Sounds like you come at truth from a more spiritual or religious path - hence the role of transcendence in your formulation. — Tom Storm

I have no predilection for spirituality/religiousness any more than for science and mathematics. They both observe the same nature in which we exist, and both have offered some aspects of reasoning or ethics regarding it.

That nature behaves or aligns with the fundamental truth of how it is set up. It cannot behave in violation of that. There is a stability to how all things interact with one another. There are rules that cannot be broken.

However conscious perception exists in reality and it is a space where "anything goes". Irrationality, prejudice, misconception, bias. Subjectivity: where beliefs, falsehoods and delusions, contradictions and paradox can reside, and is for one reason or another permitted by the absolute fundamental consistency of nature. It does not violate the fundamental laws, probably because we are mere fluctuating "blips", blinks in the eye of anything of enduring significance.

Benj96

This seems to assume the impossibility of a multiverse, containing multiple universes with different physics. Is that so? And if so, why think that a well justified assumption? — wonderer1

Well my answer to that is, my definition of the universe as the entirety of all things.
The "Multiverse" for me is still "the universe". Because if there's more than one one, then my definition expands to include all of them. I require a definition that satisfies the concept of "everything" so just reducing that by saying "infinity plus 1"isnt all that useful when I'm contemplating how things work/reality.

I believe the Mutliverse is an idea brought around by the fact that every person understands or perceives on singular thing - "the universe" in billions of ways - "subjectivity" .

In every mind is a unique concept/paradigm of reality. So in essence we are walking "multiverses" in a psychological/mental capacity, with differing rules, reasonings and behaviours.

Secondly, we have the ability to think in retrospect and ponder "what if" I didn't quit that job in 2015, how would my life be different? Our imagination lends itself to the idea of "alternate timelines" and thus lends itself to projecting that onto the universe and multiplying it out indefinitely.

Benj96

↪wonderer1

lastly, I believe that physical properties and chemical properties emerged by natural selection - favouring stability or "non-self violation" whilst maximising diversity. And I believe this is the reason for many of our seemingly arbitrary or irrational numerical values for constants in geometry, mathematics and science.

Hence, the universe is set up in the only way it could be to permit consistency whilst operating on potential/possibility.
And this doesn't really lend itself to any other "successful" universes other than the ones that failed to ever exist because trial and error rendered them impossible/unstable.

In essence the only universe that can exist is the one where we can question why it does, because we exist in it. It's self evident. As life is the latest edition in evolution of chemical and physical systems.

wonderer1

I believe the Mutliverse is an idea brought around by the fact that every person understands or perceives on singular thing - "the universe" in billions of ways - "subjectivity".

↪Benj96

Ok, but that is not what physicists are referring to when discussing multiverse concepts.

Well my answer to that is, my definition of the universe as the entirety of all things.
The "Multiverse" for me is still "the universe". Because if there's more than one one, then my definition expands to include all of them.

↪Benj96

My question was regarding multiverse conceptions considered by physicists. So my questioning the basis for your statement that, "...we can and are approaching fundamental truth by observing it's uniform unchanging behaviour in the system around us.", was in the hope of pointing out that we may only be approaching accurate modeling of things within the universe we are part of. So calling that " fundamental truth" is questionable.

Benj96

Ok, but that is not what physicists are referring to when discussing multiverse concepts. — wonderer1

Well I let them on to discuss or conceptualise whatever they want. Science is about exploring possibilities right?
They sure do make it hard for themselves tho as I feel the "multiverse" theory is synonymous with "possibility" itself.

Asking the question is possibility possible? Seems a bit redundant. At least for me anyways.

Possibilities are all possible as "potential" but collapse from that wave of possible locations forms and behaviours into a singular particulate possibility the minute an action occurs. Because actions are singular and selective and close down all contradictive actions.

Remember, the system can't self violate, so when a law emerges, it must work in non contradiction to ore established laws that have stabilised. The system is self cooperative.

Benj96

was in the hope of pointing out that we may only be approaching accurate modeling of things within the universe we are part of. So calling that " fundamental truth" is questionable. — wonderer1

Unless that fundamental truth explains why multiverses cannot exist for one consistent reality to exist. Or maybe if a fundamental truth explains that human consciousness and imagination is a means for the potential of the universe we do exist in to maximise possibilities and create "virtual multiverses" - minds" and their entertainment products "VR" games etc

180 Proof

If that is the case how to we know the mass of the sun, the strength of gravity or the speed of light? — Benj96

Physical laws & constants are not "absolute truths". We "know" them only as structural invariants of our most reliable, provisional scientific models.

Who's to say these truth tellers weren't just philosophers?

IMO, anyone who denies that 's/he do not know that s/he do not know' by preaching some "absolute knowledge" is not an honest seeker (lover) of wisdom, whether s/he uses 'philosophical techniques' (e.g. sophist) or not (e.g. priest).

Benj96

Physical laws & constants are not "absolute truths". We "know" them only as structural invariants of our best provisional scientific models — 180 Proof

You're correct. I agree. If they were physics would be complete and a Toe would be established. They are however "closer" to that which doesn't change - the singularity - a fundamental and unchanging rule.

Paradox of Absolute truth

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions