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

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.

1). The probability of this universe existing is 1
2). The universe contains objects.
3). Humans are one such set of objects
4). Humans are also subjects.
5). Therefore part of the universe is a subject
6). Therefore the probability that the universe can exist as a subject is also 1.

7). The universe as a subject satisfies most basic definitions of a God - a set of conditions that permits self awareness (the universe being aware of itself).

How it does that is through the emergence of life. As for when consciousness emerges, it may be the process of self organisation itself. In which case it is a fundamental like spacetime and energy.

It may have began before the arbitrary point in time when replicating chemicals in bubbles of material became "cells" and DNA. Or it may have begin at that moment. Or it may have began at higher lifeforms.

For me I suspect consciousness as a general ability to "sense" and control things around a focal point has been around for a long long time - like gravity being the "sense" or control of a mass on other masses forming organised solar systems, and thus consciousness would have merely changed in character, behaviour and ability.

I think we mix up the term "human consciousness" with "consciousness" in general. As we don't know what it's "like" to be other "agents" that self sustain and influence their environment - like a dog or a tree or bacterium.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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).

well it's difficult to say.

Generally speakin, cancer of any kind is seen to be lethal if untreated. And thus detrimental not only to the individual but to their children if they pass on these faulty genes.

But not all diseases are created equally. And not all diseases are as lethal as cancer nor inhibit reproduction or prosperity as much as cancer does.

What may reduce ones life expectancy today may very well encourage survival tomorrow when the environment/living conditions change.

For example, fair skin improves vitamin D synthesis but also increases melanoma risk. If the world were to get more hazy/cloudy or darker, then fair skin would be an advantage. However if the world were to get more exposed to UV, I don't know say maybe because of ozone depletion, then being light skinned would be detrimental.

In such cases, light skin may approach being a "disease state" if the majority of fair skinned people get melanoma. By mere risk or association of the 2 conditions.

Likewise dark skin could become more detrimental if there is a deficiency of vitamin D synthesis in a darker world.

Our diseases reflect the environment.
When the environment changes, so too does our consideration of what is disease = that which diminishes our survival in a given set of conditions
.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If any of you have thought through this issue and have come to make sense of it in your own spiritual walks, I would love to hear any analogies or descriptions that have helped you to make sense of this confusing element of the nature of God. — tryhard

For me I understand the holy Trinity differently.
In my explorations I found it to regard the concept of "Truth" and it's revelation rather than the concept "God" per se. With truth being in the center and the triad acting as a sort of Venn diagram overlapping with one another.

There are 3 features in the trinity I explored:

1). Instead of "holy spirit" there is "language/communication/expression".

2). Instead of "The father" there is the universe/nature/external reality.

3). Finally, instead of the "son" there is "self" or "the conscious awareness/mind of people".

None of the individual items in isolation = truth (in the center).
All of the items combined do however = truth.

For example:
1). Language/communication or what is said about the other two facets: the self and the universe does not equal them. Language or "what can be said" does not = truth.

2). The universe or what it is objectively does not equal our awareness of it/mind nor the language we use to determine/describe it. Objective universe = does not equal truth.

3). Conscious perception/ what is a). perceived about external reality/the universe and b). Interpreted from language of others does not equal them.
The mind/self does not = truth.

But when we combine the universe, ourselves, and our communication between it and one another, this equals the full set of all things, all overlaps. Nothing excluded.
Thus the truth.

In essence the trinity is a triad between selves, communication between them as well as with reality. A three-way dynamic between them all.

I'm familiar with Atwoods dystopia. The frightening thing and I suspect most captivating, is how plausible it is. Its not like extreme and fundamentalist ideological groups haven't come to power before and often all it takes is an insidious fusion of two or three large subcultural groups into a political movement

1. Tackling religiousity and magical-thinking/delusions, replacing with reason and critical thought.
2. Addressing mental health crisis and better treatment for convert narcissism and cluster B profiles. A majority of treatment is for the victims, and not the narcissists themselves. If you are a narcissist, the advice is basically 'you are doomed' and you are the target of a mass witch-hunt.
3. Learning stoicism.
4. Erasing this idea their issues have anything to do with women and not heavy dependence on religious coping methods. — Cobra

I think these are definitely a very good start. I do think narcissism isn't as fixed as we think though. I believe people can become more narcissistic or less narcissistic depending on conditions, experience and cognitive behavioural changes.

I agree. Why do you think the availability of prostitution does not meet the needs of incels? — frank

Because whilst incels may be slightly less sexuallly frustrated/ temporarily subdue their loneliness through purchasing sex, this will only be replaced by the anger at the fact that they had to resort to money to get what they want whilst the "Chad's" or alpha males simply get it for free.

There is an inherent degree of envy involved. I can imagine an incel saying "why should I have to spend my hard earned money to get laid".

Not to mention the fact a portion of incels probably don't earn enough to make buying sex financially viable. Some have such low esteem and are so demotivated that they suffer depression and are unemployed. Living with parents maybe. That's highly restricting both to having a girlfriend or buying sex.

Because it's only in his mind that the curse is working. You said it in the OP that the curse isn't real. But if he believes that curses are real, then, yes he's bound to that curse. — L'éléphant

True. So in conclusion, he either finds a way to refuse believing the curse and thus isn't influenced by it, or he does believe it (what Beth wants) in which case his only choice is to absolve himself of the curse. To confess.

So for Beth, justice is done if he takes credence in the curse. If he believes it, Beth gets what she wants.

Prostitution is dishonorable in our world (for the most part). This makes that path problematic for some. — frank

Don't know why prostitution is dishonorable.

If anything, prostitution is selling ones innate qualities (sexual attractiveness/beauty) and personal skills (sex) for monetary gain.

What is the difference between this and being a model (which also sell inherent beauty/sexual attractiveness). Or those that sell innate skills other than sex: strength - wrestlers, athletes etc. Or intellect - academics, professors, scientists etc.

"mind for sale"- the purview if the intellectual, and "body for sale"- the purview of the sex worker or model. Or "skills for sale" - the purview of everyone else, ought not be seen as more or less honorable than one another.

We all sell our strengths and abilities. For some that is sex.

No, that's a ridiculous criteria which would make it impossible for anyone to point out pseudoscience. — wonderer1

Science is actually about articulating a rational explanation to counter someone's views rather than saying "that's just pseudoscience" with zero backing.

One operates off rational thought, logical coherent constructions, the other off personal bias/determination.

I'm all ears for a cohesive reasoning as to why it's pseudoscience. I'm not all ears however for unsupported determinations of pseudoscientifism.

So, I'm waiting for your actual critique on what I said.

And if I don't understand what you're saying, I can ask you to clarify. That's not an insult. — L'éléphant

Alright. It wAs mEaNT tO SAy "Apply". Glad we clarified. I'll be more sure to write with exacting precision in future in case you mis-interpret something like "commmon sense" for "common sense".

Define this word please — L'éléphant

Ah I see we are devolving to the petty. It was a typo. "apply" was the word I meant to write. Take your trolling elsewhere as its vindictive and malicious for the sake of it. I assume you're intelligent enough to figure out a typo. If you're not... Well then, I can only offer pity.

I don't, however, understand where such pedantic trolling comes from. What issue do you have with what I say that leads you to reduce yourself to that?

I'm happy to move on if you are.

Those who take antibiotics are slowly killing themselves. — L'éléphant

Those that take don't take antibiotics kill themselves faster.

I feel you're either trolling or just desperate for some validity.

When you next get a severe case of tonsillitis, you can wrestle on your own with infection and possibly die of sepsis, or you can take a pill and feel better in 48 hrs. That's up to you altho I wouldn't recommend relying just on faith in your body to overcome the invader.

Therefore, there are living things that aren't stressed out like some humans are stressed out. — L'éléphant

Yes. Other living things are stressed by other factors that apply to their life cycle/ nature and don't apply to ours. Bacteria are stressed by the presence of antibiotics. Humans are not or far less stressed by the presence of antibiotics.

What of it?

Different lifeforms... Different life stressors. Simple.

Trees are stressed out by soil conditions. Humans are not stressed by the conditions of the soil they're walking on. However humans may be stressed if all soil conditions everywhere were bad, because we rely on eating plants that depend on them. All stressors indirectly influence the stressors of other lifeforms. That is ecosystem. Symbiosis

FWIW, I find pseudoscience debunking to be providing a positive contribution — wonderer1

For you to establish anything as definitively "pseudoscience" that requires you to be the ultimate and unquestionable "scientist." Knowing all and everything that could possibly be considered scientific.

That's a ballsy stance to take. And one I'm all to happy to challenge.

It becomes, all conditions are stressors. Which moots your point. — L'éléphant

No it doesn't haha. Good conditions. Ripe conditions, are not stressful. Such conditions foster life.

Just as the conditions of 23 degrees, adequate water, humidity and soil are the "non-stressful" or nurturing conditions for seeds to germinate.

If all conditions were inherently stressors, then life would not exist because it would be stressed into oblivion.

Mother nature is equal parts fostering/constrictive/nurturing and destructive/stressful/deadly.

A wild tree with fruits has no stress — L'éléphant

According to who? Trees undergo stress like we do. The stressors may not be the same. But a tree can experience detriment to it's growth and reproductive potential.

As far as I know trees can be traumatised by the environment or infected with disease. These are stressors that negatively impact their DNA.

DNA is concerned with survival. Stability. Anything chaotic, stressful or traumatic has an impact on it. All lifeforms experience "stress" otherwise natural skeevtion would not work. Are you saying that darwinian evolution is only relevant to some loving things? That trees are without any selective pressures on their evolution?

The claim in the OP isn't that behavior can cause damaging genetic changes that cause disease — T Clark

Yes it is as claim to such. Toxic behaviours do cause damage. As we established.

Yes, I agree. There is evidence to show that smoking causes cancer. — T Clark

It then highlights the opposite, that healthy behaviors promote genetic repair and stability.

. It mostly talks about the general affects of ageing not genetic causes of disease — T Clark

Of course People are born with genetic diseases out of their control. That's because DNA operates on a longer timescale than individual existence. It is intergenerational.

So the cumulative mistakes of one's past ancestors - their behaviour and their environment, influences the health and lifespan of their descendents.

What you do in life today, your behaviors, will positively or negatively impact your descendents birth, health/ quality of life and lifespan.

Because the harm one causes to their own DNA may never impact them specifically if the effects are felt only by the cells that produce sperm and eggs. Ie. "germline DNA" - that which you pass to your children.

So we have an obligation to lead a healthy life not only for ourselves but for our future descendents.

It also claims "...there is a direct link between the mind and DNA." — T Clark

Yes it does. Because there is. DNA exists within a body. A mind also exists within the same body. It's not like genetic diseases dont impact on the mind (mental disability caused by downs syndrome for example).

Yes, I agree. There is evidence to show that smoking causes cancer. — T Clark

Good. Then we are on to something here. This is merely the holistic approach to human health and longevity.

To be holistic means acknowledging that all aspects of the person in entirety - including their psychology/mind - are players in the role of survival and thriving, youthfulness and health.

To ignore the minds role in health is deferring all personal responsibility for how fast you age and deteriorate.

We must align ourselves mentally with a deep and comprehensive understanding of DNA and how it works.

Because DNA is the blueprint for the laws of mother nature. It "knows" much more than we do because DNA has been around for far longer than any singular individual, it is shaped, formed, reformulated but the environment - nature and it's laws. It is a teaching of the ecosystem towards the niches and becoming of any species within a niche in the ecosystem.

DNA "lives" intergenerationally. Education on nature imbedded within and passed on between organisms - from parent to offspring for eons.

It "understands" the art of living by the very fact that it continues to propagate amongst us, to sustain us.

This archaic text ought to be read first before it is re-written/amended. Rather than ignored and rewritten on a whim. We invariably re-write it through our actions, desires and behaviors.

So we must contemplate our actions and their effects on it if we stand any chance at avoiding corrupting the text of our constitution as healthy organisms.

Ageing is the cumulative effects of our imperfections in life. Ageing is the product of our illiteracy regarding the primary language of life. Ageing is a dissonance between the knowledge held/stored in DNA and "subjective knowledge or beliefs" held by the mind that "thinks it knows" what nature is, and thus what is tolerable/acceptable to nature's design. Ignoring such is to our detriment.

excellent reference unenlightened. Bravo/a.

Psychological stress and trauma leads to impairment/disbalance of the mind-body axis and thus exerts negative epigenetic pressure on DNA, through "top-down" cascading dysfunction.

The mind exerts natural selective forces towards which genes are more active (thriving and surviving) or less active (silenced or "functionally dead" or "genome extinct" ).

If the minds effects on body promotes genes that when hyperactive encourage cancer or autoimmunity, then such mental pressures are sure to reduce ones lifespan. Or accelerate ageing.

Do you have any references that provide data to justify this claim? I can believe that changes in behavior will improve health and help let us live longer. Unless you have evidence, I am skeptical that it can change our DNA. — T Clark

Smoke for 40 years. It will change your DNA. Cancer doesn't appear randomly. It arises from genetic mutation.

That is my evidence. It is well established medical fact. If you want me to reference articles that promote the idea that carcinogens exist (mutation inducing substances or even behaviours like smoking that introduce such substances to the body exist) I can. Though I don't believe this is neccesary as I would imagine it's common knowledge at this stage, and knowledge you can easily find for yourself.

Ask your doctor if smoking is bad for your DNA.

As for the mind exerting positive epigenetic pressure on the quality of DNA, it is the opposite of exerting negative epigenetic pressure on the quality of DNA (ie consuming carcinogens) - substances that destabilise and corrupt (mutate) DNA. Like cigarette smoke.

. He doesn't just need to be be freed; he needs to feel free. He needs to do something positive to restore karmic balance. — Vera Mont

That's true. If the apology is genuine and remorseful. He will feel compelled do act to restore karma. If it isn't genuine or coming from remorse, if he's only trying to break the curse
then he likely wont tell the authorities

"This statement is a statement". Is this true? I think so

For me truth is that which is most permanent in reality. That which is unchanging. Thus absolute truth is fundamental and constant. The single law that governs the entire universe.

As we know time means things change. Thus "degree of truth" of any given existant is time dependent. Some existants are more time enduring - millions of years, billions of years, maybe even eternally - think thermodynamics at the basis of newtonian physics.

Some existants on the other hand are less time enduring (true only for a split second, or even nano or femtoseconds). Think quantum physics.

So truth permeates all rates of change from the very slow and consistent, to the instantaneous and brief. And the difference between the two ends of the spectrum is relativity and time/duration.

Everything changes (partial truths/temporally contextualised truths) except for fundamental truth (which does not change regardless of time).

The relationships between any given truth at any moment through time is the basis for knowledge. Knowability and awareness. And because knowledge is power, knowledge is the ability to control, predict etc, truth is also the basis for morality. Speaking the truth (educating/imparting knowledge) empowers people to use it benevolently.

Of course one can opt to use truths malevolently, but that requires hiding the truth/keeping it to yourself, so as to prevent others from being aware of your actions.

You cannot control others/manipulate them if they know more than you. If they're more aware. Because they instead would be in a position of control.